## Facts

- Steak and Ale Restaurants of America, Inc. applied to register “PRINCE CHARLES” for “fresh and cooked meat.”
- A USPTO Examining Attorney refused registration under Lanham Act § 2(c) (15 U.S.C. § 1052(c)).
- The refusal was based on the determination that “PRINCE CHARLES” is the name of a particular living individual (Charles, Prince of Wales) and no written consent was provided.
- The applicant argued the designation was intended as an arbitrary or “historical title” use for food products rather than to identify the living royal.
- The applicant appealed the final refusal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) in an ex parte appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether “PRINCE CHARLES,” for fresh and cooked meat, “consists of or comprises a name ... identifying a particular living individual” under Lanham Act § 2(c).
2. Whether an applicant’s asserted arbitrary intent can avoid § 2(c) when the designation is commonly understood as identifying a specific living person.

## Decision

- The TTAB affirmed the Examining Attorney’s refusal to register the mark.
- The TTAB held that “PRINCE CHARLES” identifies a particular living individual and therefore falls within § 2(c).
- Because written consent of the identified individual was not of record, registration was barred.

## Legal Principles

- Lanham Act § 2(c) requires refusal of registration for a mark that consists of or comprises a name identifying a particular living individual unless that individual provides written consent.
- The § 2(c) inquiry focuses on whether the designation identifies a particular living person as understood by the relevant public, not on the applicant’s subjective intent.
- A designation combining a title (including royal or honorific elements) with a name may still be treated as a “name” under § 2(c) if it uniquely identifies a living individual.
- § 2(c) operates as a consent-based bar; it does not require proof of likely confusion, deception, or false endorsement.

## Conclusion

The TTAB affirmed refusal to register “PRINCE CHARLES” for meat because the designation identified a particular living individual and the applicant lacked the written consent required by Lanham Act § 2(c).


In re Steak & Ale Rests. of Am., Inc., 185 U.S.P.Q. 447 (T.T.A.B. 1975)