## Facts

- Williams operated “BOZO’S Hot Pit Bar‑B‑Q” in Mason, Tennessee, and sought federal registration of BOZO’S for restaurant services.
- Harmon, owner of rights in the “Bozo” mark/character, opposed registration, arguing Williams failed the Lanham Act § 3 “use in commerce” requirement.
- BOZO’S had operated at a single Tennessee location since 1932, about a 50–60 minute drive from Memphis, a major commercial center.
- The Memphis metropolitan area includes parts of Tennessee, Mississippi, and Arkansas; BOZO’S was described as popular with Memphis residents.
- It was undisputed that BOZO’S rendered restaurant services to interstate travelers; Harmon acknowledged it served some interstate travelers.
- BOZO’S had been mentioned in publications originating from multiple states, suggesting recognition beyond Tennessee.
- The TTAB granted Williams summary judgment and dismissed the opposition, resolving factual disputes and inferences in Harmon’s favor.

## Issues

1. Whether a single-location restaurant’s operation that serves some interstate travelers and draws customers from a multi-state metropolitan area constitutes “use in commerce” under Lanham Act § 3, 15 U.S.C. § 1053, sufficient to support federal service-mark registration.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper where the interstate-commerce facts were undisputed and the remaining question was legal.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB’s grant of summary judgment for Williams and dismissal of Harmon’s opposition.
- The court held Williams satisfied the Lanham Act’s “use in commerce” requirement for registering BOZO’S as a service mark.
- The court agreed the Board applied the correct summary-judgment standard by crediting Harmon’s evidence and drawing inferences in Harmon’s favor.
- The court rejected Harmon’s attempt to create a factual dispute through attorney argument attacking Williams’s evidence without producing conflicting probative evidence.

## Legal Principles

- For service marks, “use in commerce” under the Lanham Act is satisfied when the services are rendered in commerce that Congress may regulate, including interstate commerce effects.
- A physically local service business may qualify as “use in commerce” if it serves interstate travelers or draws clientele from a multi-state area, even if the service location is in one state.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when material facts are undisputed and the remaining “use in commerce” determination is a legal question; counsel’s unsupported attacks on evidence do not create a genuine issue of material fact.

## Conclusion

A single-location restaurant may meet the Lanham Act “use in commerce” requirement for federal service-mark registration when it renders services to interstate travelers and attracts customers from a multi-state metropolitan area; absent conflicting evidence, the issue may be resolved on summary judgment.


Larry Harmon Pictures Corp. v. Williams Rest. Corp., 929 F.2d 662 (Fed. Cir. 1991)