Also known as: uses in commerce · used in commerce · using in commerce · commercial use · trademark use
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The bona fide placement of a mark on goods or in connection with services that are sold or rendered in interstate commerce. This placement must occur in the ordinary course of trade rather than merely to reserve rights for future use. The requirement fixes the mark to marketed goods or services and serves as a prerequisite for federal trademark registration under the Lanham Act.
Ulysses Ulrich discovers that Uptown Apparel has begun selling t-shirts bearing his name without permission in stores across three states. The display of the name directly on the goods offered for interstate sale raises the question whether that placement meets the threshold for use in commerce. Liability turns on whether the unauthorized commercial exploitation satisfies the statutory placement and interstate elements.
Umeko Uchida files an intent-to-use application for a mark she plans to place on clothing sold nationwide. The examining attorney reviews whether the planned bona fide use in ordinary trade across state lines will satisfy the commerce requirement once actual sales begin. Registration hinges on proof that the mark will be affixed to goods moving in interstate commerce.
Ugo Uberti operates an auto-repair business entirely inside one state yet serves customers who travel from other states. The court considers whether rendering services to interstate travelers satisfies the use-in-commerce test for federal registration. The outcome determines whether the mark qualifies for Lanham Act protection despite the fixed location.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Una Ueda sends bulk promotional emails displaying her service mark to recipients in multiple states. The recipient company challenges whether the mark appears in advertising sufficiently connected to the sale of services to constitute use in commerce. The dispute centers on whether the electronic placement meets the statutory advertising criterion.
Ursula Ung records and distributes a parody song nationwide under a mark that appears on album packaging and streaming platforms. The original rights holder questions whether the commercial distribution of the recording constitutes use in commerce that triggers infringement analysis. The court evaluates whether the mark's placement on goods sold across state lines satisfies the threshold.
Ursula Upton places her competitor's mark on packaging for replacement parts sold in interstate commerce. The competitor sues claiming the use creates standing for a false-advertising claim. The litigation turns on whether the mark's appearance on goods moving across state lines meets the use-in-commerce element required for the cause of action.
The owner must demonstrate that the mark is placed on the goods, their containers, displays, or tags, and that the goods are sold or transported in interstate commerce. A single bona fide sale or shipment can suffice if it is not collusive. Token or internal transfers do not qualify.
Supporting sources
For services the mark must appear in advertising or on documents associated with the services, and the services must be rendered to customers in interstate commerce. Rendering services in one state to out-of-state travelers satisfies the requirement.
Supporting sources
No. An intent-to-use application allows an applicant to secure a filing date before actual use, but the applicant must later file proof of actual bona fide use in commerce before the registration issues. The use must still meet the statutory definition of ordinary-course trade across state lines.
Supporting sources
Yes, if the goods or services affect interstate commerce, such as when services are provided to out-of-state customers or when goods are shipped across state lines. Purely intrastate activity with no interstate nexus does not qualify.
Supporting sources
…Government’s argument that the disparagement clause is constitutional because it applies only to trademarks that are used in commerce is unpersuasive. If the clause were upheld, the Government could similarly prohibit the use of offensive trademarks in any context. The clause regulates the expressive content of trademarks…