Determining whether a proposed mark is used merely as a model designation is a question of fact. See SawStop, LLC v. Felder KG, Opp. No. 91255905, 2025 TTAB LEXIS 351, at *18 (2025) (citing In re Dana Corp., Ser. No. 73655454, 1989 TTAB LEXIS 34, at *2 (1989); In re Petersen Mfg. Co., Ser. No. 73394687, 1986 TTAB LEXIS 114, at *3-9 (1986); In re Otis Eng'g Corp., Ser. No. 73279104, 1983 TTAB LEXIS 225, at *2-3, *5 (1983)) ("[I]n determining whether a designation will be perceived merely as a model designation, we consider not only the manner and context of its use-including its size, stylization, and placement on the goods or associated materials-but also whether there is any evidence that the relevant public recognizes it as an indicator of source.").

The factual finding focuses on whether the proposed mark, as used on the specimen (and any other evidence of record), also identifies the applicant as the source of the goods or distinguishes the applicant’s goods from the goods of others. Extrinsic evidence may also aid in determining whether the proposed mark functions as a source indicator. The following three considerations regarding the manner and context of the mark’s use comprise guidelines for determining whether a proposed mark, as used on a specimen, serves merely as a model designation or whether it also functions as a source indicator.

The stylization of display refers to the visual presentation or "look" of a proposed mark on the specimen, and takes into consideration such elements as font style and color as well as design features. In some cases, the stylization creates an impression separate and apart from that of a model designation, thereby making the designation more likely to be perceived as a trademark. In analyzing stylization of display, the examining attorney should consider whether the font or stylization of lettering in the proposed mark is unusual or relatively ordinary, and should also consider the degree of stylization. Where the stylization is minimal, the proposed mark may be more likely to be perceived as merely a model designation.

Size refers to the relative dimension of the proposed mark. If the proposed mark appears large in relation to any other matter, it may immediately catch the eye and make the proposed mark the focal point on the specimen. Therefore, the proposed mark would be less likely to be perceived as a mere model designation. If the proposed mark is smaller than the other matter surrounding it, however, consumers would be more likely to perceive it as merely a model designation.

The physical location refers to the actual position of the proposed mark on a specimen. Although there is no prescribed location on a specimen where the proposed mark must be placed to qualify as a trademark, the physical location of matter on a specimen suggests how the mark would be perceived by consumers and whether such matter serves as a trademark or is merely a model designation. The display of a proposed mark in a prominent location on the goods themselves, or on the packaging or label, is a factor that may contribute to finding that it serves as a trademark. A proposed mark that appears in close proximity to generic or informational matter (such as the common or class name for the goods, net weight, bar code, or country of origin) is less likely to be perceived as a mark because it will be viewed together with the generic or informational matter as merely conveying information about the model of a particular product line.