*305Mr. Chief Justice Burger

delivered the opinion of the Court.

We granted certiorari to determine whether a live, human-made micro-organism is patentable subject matter under 35 U. S. C. § 101.

I

In 1972, respondent Chakrabarty, a microbiologist, filed a patent application, assigned to the General Electric Co. The application asserted 36 claims related to Chakrabarty’s invention of “a bacterium from the genus Pseudomonas containing therein at least two stable energy-generating plasmids, each of said plasmids providing a separate hydrocarbon degradative pathway.” 1 This human-made, genetically engineered bacterium is capable of breaking down multiple components of crude oil. Because of this property, which is possessed by no naturally occurring bacteria, Chakrabarty’s invention is believed to have significant value for the treatment of oil spills.2

Chakrabarty’s patent claims were of three types: first, process claims for the method of producing the bacteria; *306second, claims for an inoculum comprised of a carrier material floating on water, such as straw, and the new bacteria; and third, claims to the bacteria themselves. The patent examiner allowed the claims falling into the first two categories, but rejected claims for the bacteria. His decision rested on two grounds: (1) that micro-organisms are “products of nature,” and (2) that as living things they are not patentable subject matter under 35 U. S. C. § 101.

Chakrabarty appealed the rejection of these claims to the Patent Office Board of Appeals, and the Board affirmed the examiner on the second ground.3 Relying on the legislative history of the 1930 Plant Patent Act, in which Congress extended patent protection to certain asexually reproduced plants, the Board concluded that § 101 was not intended to cover living things such as these laboratory created micro-organisms.

The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, by a divided vote, reversed on the authority of its prior decision in In re Bergy, 563 F. 2d 1031, 1038 (1977), which held that “the fact that microorganisms . . . are alive ... [is] without legal significance” for purposes of the patent law.4 Subsequently, we granted the Acting Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks’ petition for certiorari in Bergy, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case “for further consideration in light of Parker v. Flook, 437 U. S. 584 (1978).” 438 17. S. 902 (1978). The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals then vacated its judgment in Chakrabarty and consolidated the case with Bergy for reconsideration. After re-examining both cases in the light of our holding in Flook, that court, with one dissent, reaffirmed its earlier judgments. 596 F. 2d 952 (1979).

*307The Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks again sought certiorari, and we granted the writ as to both Bergy and Chakrabarty. 444 U. S. 924 (1979). Since then, Bergy has been dismissed as moot, 444 U. S. 1028 (1980), leaving only Chakrabarty for decision.

II

The Constitution grants Congress broad power to legislate to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” Art. I, § 8, cl. 8. The patent laws promote this progress by offering inventors exclusive rights for a limited period as an incentive for their inventiveness and research efforts. Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U. S. 470, 480-481 (1974); Universal Oil Co. v. Globe Co., 322 U. S. 471, 484 (1944). The authority of Congress is exercised in the hope that “[t]he productive effort thereby fostered will have a positive effect on society through the introduction of new products and processes of manufacture into the economy, and the emanations by way of increased employment and better lives for our citizens.” Kewanee, supra, at 480.

The question before us in this case is a narrow one of statutory interpretation requiring us to construe 35 U. S. C. § 101, which provides:

“Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”

Specifically, we must determine whether respondent’s microorganism constitutes a “manufacture” or “composition of matter” within the meaning of the statute.5

*308Ill

In cases of statutory construction we begin, of course, with the language of the statute. Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 U. S. 397, 405 (1979). And “unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning.” Perrin v. United States, 444 U. S. 37, 42 (1979). We have also cautioned that courts “should not read into the patent laws limitations and conditions which the legislature has not expressed.” United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp., 289 U. S. 178, 199 (1933).

Guided by these canons of construction, this Court has read the term “manufacture” in § 101 in accordance with its dictionary definition to mean “the production of articles for use from raw or prepared materials by giving to these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand-labor or by machinery.” American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Brogdex Co., 283 U. S. 1, 11 (1931). Similarly, “composition of matter” has been construed consistent with its common usage to include “all compositions of two or more substances and ... all composite articles, whether they be the results of chemical union, or of mechanical mixture, or whether they be gases, fluids, powders or solids.” Shell Development Co. v. Watson, 149 F. Supp. 279, 280 (DC 1957) (citing 1 A. Deller, Walker on Patents § 14, p. 55 (1st ed. 1937)). In choosing such expansive terms as “manufacture” and “composition of matter,” modified by the comprehensive “any,” Congress plainly contemplated that the patent laws would be given wide scope.

The relevant legislative history also supports a broad construction. The Patent Act of 1793, authored by Thomas Jefferson, defined statutory subject matter as “any new and useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new or useful improvement [thereof].” Act of Feb. 21, 1793, § 1, 1 Stat. 319. The Act embodied Jefferson’s philosophy that “ingenuity should receive a liberal encouragement.” *3095 Writings of Thomas Jefferson 75-76 (Washington ed. 1871). See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U. S. 1, 7-10 (1966). Subsequent patent statutes in 1836, 1870, and 1874 employed this same broad language. In 1952, when the patent laws were recodified, Congress replaced the word “art” with “process,” but otherwise left Jefferson’s language intact. The Committee Reports accompanying the 1952 Act inform us that Congress intended statutory subject matter to “include anything under the sun that is made by man.” S. Rep. No. 1979, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 5 (1952); H. R. Rep. No. 1923, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 6 (1952).6

This is not to suggest that § 101 has no limits or that it embraces every discovery. The laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas have been held not patentable. See Parker v. Flook, 437 U. S. 584 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U. S. 63, 67 (1972); Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U. S. 127, 130 (1948); O’Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. 62, 112-121 (1854); Le Roy v. Tatham, 14 How. 156, 175 (1853). Thus, a new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild is not patentable subject matter. Likewise, Einstein could not patent his celebrated law that E=mc2; nor could Newton have patented the law of gravity. Such discoveries are “manifestations of . . . nature, free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.” Funk, supra, at 130.

Judged in this light, respondent’s micro-organism plainly qualifies as patentable subject matter. His claim is not to a hitherto unknown natural phenomenon, but to a nonnaturally occurring manufacture or composition of matter — a product of human ingenuity “having a distinctive name, character [and] *310use.” Hartranft v. Wiegmann, 121 U. S. 609, 615 (1887). The point is underscored dramatically by comparison of the invention here with that in Funk. There, the patentee had discovered that there existed in nature certain species of root-nodule bacteria which did not exert a mutually inhibitive effect on each other. He used that discovery to produce a mixed culture capable of inoculating the seeds of leguminous plants. Concluding that the patentee had discovered "only some of the handiwork of nature,” the Court ruled the product nonpatentable:

“Each of the species of root-nodule bacteria contained in the package infects the same group of leguminous plants which it always infected. No species acquires a different use. The combination of species produces no new bacteria, no change in the six species of bacteria, and no enlargement of the range of their utility. Each species has the same effect it always had. The bacteria perform in their natural way. Their use in combination does not improve in any way their natural functioning. They serve the ends nature originally provided and act quite independently of any effort of the patentee.” 333 TJ. S., at 131.

Here, by contrast, the patentee has produced a new bacterium with markedly different characteristics from any found in nature and one having the potential for significant utility. His discovery is not nature’s handiwork, but his own; accordingly it is patentable subject matter under § 101.

IV

Two contrary arguments are advanced, neither of which we find persuasive.

(A)

The petitioner’s first argument rests on the enactment of the 1930 Plant Patent Act, which afforded patent protection to certain asexually reproduced plants, and the 1970 Plant *311Variety Protection Act, which authorized protection for certain sexually reproduced plants but excluded bacteria from its protection.7 In the petitioner’s view, the passage of these Acts evidences congressional understanding that the terms “manufacture” or “composition of matter” do not include living things; if they did, the petitioner argues, neither Act would have been necessary.

We reject this argument. Prior to 1930, two factors were thought to remove plants from patent protection. The first was the belief that plants, even those artificially bred, were products of nature for purposes of the patent law. This position appears to have derived from the decision of the Patent Office in Ex parte Latimer, 1889 Dec. Com. Pat. 123, in which a patent claim for fiber found in the needle of the Pinus australis was rejected. The Commissioner reasoned that a contrary result would permit “patents [to] be obtained upon the trees of the forest and the plants of the earth, which of course would be unreasonable and impossible.” Id., at 126. The Latimer case, it seems, came to “se[t] forth the general stand taken in these matters” that plants were natural products not subject to patent protection. Thorne, Relation of Patent Law to Natural Products, 6 J. Pat. Off. Soc. 23, 24 *312(1923).8 The second obstacle to patent protection for plants was the fact that plants were thought not amenable to the “written description” requirement of the patent law. See 35 U. S. C. § 112. Because new plants may differ from old only in color or perfume, differentiation by written description was often impossible. See Hearings on H. R. 11372 before the House Committee on Patents, 71st Cong., 2d Sess., 7 (1930) (memorandum of Patent Commissioner Robertson).

In enacting the Plant Patent Act, Congress addressed both of these concerns. It explained at length its belief that the work of the plant breeder “in aid of nature” was patentable invention. S. Rep. No. 315, 71st Cong., 2d Sess., 6-8 (1930); H. R. Rep. No. 1129, 71st Cong., 2d Sess., 7-9 (1930). And it relaxed the written description requirement in favor of “a description ... as complete as is reasonably possible.” 35 U. S. C. § 162. No Committee or Member of Congress, however, expressed the broader view, now urged by the petitioner, that the terms “manufacture” or “composition of matter” exclude living things. The sole support for that position in the legislative history of the 1930 Act is found in the conclusory statement of Secretary of Agriculture Hyde, in a letter to the Chairmen of the House and Senate Committees considering the 1930 Act, that “the patent laws ... at the present time are understood to cover only inventions or discoveries in the field of inanimate nature.” See S. Rep. No. 315, supra, at Appendix A; H. R. Rep. No. 1129, supra, at Appendix A. Secretary Hyde’s opinion, however, is not entitled to controlling weight. His views were solicited on the administration of the new law and not on the scope of patent*313able subject matter — an area beyond his competence. Moreover, there is language in the House and Senate Committee' Reports suggesting that to the extent Congress considered the matter it found the Secretary’s dichotomy unpersuasive. The Reports observe:

“There is a clear and logical distinction between the discovery of a new variety of plant and of certain inanimate things, such, for example, as a new and useful natural mineral. The mineral is created wholly by nature unassisted by man. ... On the other hand, a plant discovery resulting from cultivation is unique, isolated, and is not repeated by nature, nor can it be reproduced by nature unaided by man. . . .” S. Rep. No. 315, supra, at 6; H. R. Rep. No. 1129, supra, at 7 (emphasis added).

Congress thus recognized that the relevant distinction was not between living and inanimate things, but between products of nature, whether living or not, and human-made inventions. Here, respondent’s micro-organism is the result of human ingenuity and research. Hence, the passage of the Plant Patent Act affords the Government no support.

Nor does the passage of the 1970 Plant Variety Protection Act support the Government’s position. As the Government acknowledges, sexually reproduced plants were not included under the 1930 Act because new varieties could not be reproduced true-to-type through seedlings.. Brief for Petitioner 27, n. 31. By 1970, however, it was generally recognized that true-to-type reproduction was possible and that plant patent protection was therefore appropriate. The 1970 Act extended that protection. There is nothing in its language or history to suggest that it was enacted because § 101 did not include living things.

In particular, we find nothing in the exclusion of bacteria from plant variety protection to support the petitioner’s position. See n. 7, supra. The legislative history gives no reason for this exclusion. As the Court of Customs and *314Patent Appeals suggested, it may simply reflect congressional agreement with the result reached by that court in deciding In re Arzberger, 27 C. C. P. A. (Pat.) 1315, 112 F. 2d 834 (1940), which held that bacteria were not plants for the purposes of the 1930 Act. Or it may reflect the fact that prior to 1970 the Patent Office had issued patents for bacteria under § 101.9 In any event, absent some clear indication that Congress “focused on [the] issues . . . directly related to the one presently before the Court" SEC v. Sloan, 436 U. S. 103, 120-121 (1978), there is no basis for reading into its actions an intent to modify the plain meaning of the words found in § 101. See TV A v. Hill, 437 U. S. 153, 189-193 (1978) ; United States v. Price, 361 U. S. 304, 313 (1960).

(B)

The petitioner’s second argument is that micro-organisms cannot qualify as patentable subject matter until Congress expressly authorizes such protection. His position rests on the fact that genetic technology was unforeseen when Congress enacted § 101. From this it is argued that resolution of the patentability of inventions such as respondent’s should be left to Congress. The legislative process, the petitioner argues, is best equipped to weigh the competing economic, social, and scientific considerations involved, and to determine whether living organisms produced by genetic engineering should receive patent protection. In support of this position, the petitioner relies on our recent holding in Parker v. Flook, 437 U. S. 584 (1978), and the statement that the judiciary “must proceed cautiously when . . . asked to extend *315patent rights into areas wholly unforeseen by Congress.” Id., at 596.

It is, of course, correct that Congress, not the courts, must define the limits of patentability; but it is equally true that once Congress has spoken it is “the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). Congress has performed its constitutional role in defining patentable subject matter in § 101; we perform ours in construing the language Congress has employed. In so doing, our obligation is to take statutes as we find them, guided, if ambiguity appears, by the legislative history and statutory purpose. Here, we perceive no ambiguity. The subject-matter provisions of the patent law have been cast in broad terms to fulfill the constitutional and statutory goal of promoting “the Progress of Science and the useful Arts” with all that means for the social and economic benefits envisioned by Jefferson. Broad general language is not necessarily ambiguous when congressional objectives require broad terms.

Nothing in Flook is to the contrary. That case applied our prior precedents to determine that a “claim for an improved method of calculation, even when tied to a specific end use, is unpatentable subject matter under § 101.” 437 U. S., at 595, n. 18. The Court carefully scrutinized the claim at issue to determine whether it was precluded from patent protection under “the principles underlying the prohibition against patents for 'ideas’ or phenomena of nature.” Id., at 593. We have done that here. Flook did not announce a new principle that inventions in areas not contemplated by Congress when the patent laws were enacted are unpatentable per se.

To read that concept into Flook would frustrate the purposes of the patent law. This Court frequently has observed that a statute is not to be confined to the “particular application [s] . . . contemplated by the legislators.” Barr v. United States, 324 U. S. 83, 90 (1945). Accord, Browder v. United States, 312 U. S. 335, 339 (1941); Puerto Rico v. Shell Co., *316302 U. S. 253, 257 (1937). This is especially true in the field of patent law. A rule that unanticipated inventions are without protection would conflict with the core concept of the patent law that anticipation undermines patentability. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U. S., at 12-17. Mr. Justice Douglas reminded that the inventions most benefiting mankind are those that “push back the frontiers of chemistry, physics, and the like.” Great A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp., 340 U. S. 147, 154 (1950) (concurring opinion). Congress employed broad general language in drafting § 101 precisely because such inventions are often unforeseeable.10

To buttress his argument, the petitioner, with the support of amicus, points to grave risks that may be generated by research endeavors such as respondent’s. The briefs present a gruesome parade of horribles. Scientists, among them Nobel laureates, are quoted suggesting that genetic research may pose a serious threat to the human race, or, at the very least, that the dangers are far too substantial to permit such research to proceed apace at this time. We are told that genetic research and related technological developments may spread pollution and disease, that it may result in a loss of genetic diversity, and that its practice may tend to depreciate the value of human life. These arguments are forcefully, even passionately, presented; they remind us that, at times, human ingenuity seems unable to control fully the forces it creates— that, with Hamlet, it is sometimes better “to bear those ills we have than fly to others that we know not of.”

It is argued that this Court should weigh these potential hazards in considering whether respondent’s invention is *317patentable subject matter under § 101. We disagree. The grant or denial of patents on micro-organisms is not likely to put an end to genetic research or to its attendant risks. The large amount of research that has already occurred when no researcher had sure knowledge that patent protection would be available suggests that legislative or judicial fiat as to patentability will not deter the scientific mind from probing into the unknown any more than Canute could command the tides. Whether respondent's claims are patentable may determine whether research efforts are accelerated by the hope of reward or slowed by want of incentives, but that is all.

What is more important is that we are without competence to entertain these arguments — either to brush them aside as fantasies generated by fear of the unknown, or to act on them. The choice we are urged to make is a matter of high policy for resolution within the legislative process after the kind of investigation, examination, and study that legislative bodies can provide and courts cannot. That process involves the balancing of competing values and interests, which in our democratic system is the business of elected representatives. Whatever their validity, the contentions now pressed on us should be addressed to the political branches of the Government, the Congress and the Executive, and not to the courts11

*318We have emphasized in the recent past that “[o]ur individual appraisal of the wisdom or unwisdom of a particular [legislative] course ... is to be put aside in the process of interpreting a statute.” TV A v. Hill, 437 U. S., at 194. Our task, rather, is the narrow one of determining what Congress meant by the words it used in the statute; once that is done our powers are exhausted. Congress is free to amend § 101 so as to exclude from patent protection organisms produced by genetic engineering. Cf. 42 U. S. C. § 2181 (a), exempting from patent protection inventions “useful solely in the utilization of special nuclear material or atomic energy in an atomic weapon.” Or it may choose to craft a statute specifically designed for such living things. But, until Congress takes such action, this Court must construe the language of § 101 as it is. The language of that section fairly embraces respondent’s invention.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals is

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice Brennan,

with whom Mr. Justice White, Mr. Justice Marshall, and Mr. Justice Powell join, dissenting.

I agree with the Court that the question before us is a narrow one. Neither the future of scientific research, nor even the ability of respondent Chakrabarty to reap some monopoly profits from his pioneering work, is at stake. Patents on the processes by which he has produced and employed the new living organism are not contested. The only question we need decide is whether Congress, exercising its authority under Art. I, § 8, of the Constitution, intended that he be able to secure a monopoly on the living organism itself, no matter how produced or how used. Because I believe the Court has misread the applicable legislation, I dissent.

*319The patent laws attempt to reconcile this Nation’s deep-seated antipathy to monopolies with the need to encourage progress. Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp., 406 U. S. 518, 530-531 (1972); Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U. S. 1, 7-10 (1966). Given the complexity and legislative nature of this delicate task, we must be careful to extend patent protection no further than Congress has provided. In particular, were there an absence of legislative direction, the courts should leave to Congress the decisions whether and how far to extend the patent privilege into areas where the common understanding has been that patents are not available.1 Cf. Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp., supra.

In this case, however, we do not confront a complete legislative vacuum. The sweeping language of the Patent Act of 1793, as re-enacted in 1952, is not the last pronouncement Congress has made in this area. In 1930 Congress enacted the Plant Patent Act affording patent protection to developers of certain asexually reproduced plants. In 1970 Congress enacted the Plant Variety Protection Act to extend protection to certain new plant varieties capable of sexual reproduction. Thus, we are not dealing — as the Court would have it — with the routine problem of “unanticipated inventions.” Ante, at 316. In these two Acts Congress has addressed the general problem of patenting animate inventions and has chosen carefully limited language granting protection to some kinds of discoveries, but specifically excluding others. These Acts strongly evidence a congressional limitation that excludes bacteria from patentability.2

*320First, the Acts evidence Congress’ understanding, at least since 1930, that § 101 does not include living organisms. If newly developed living organisms not naturally occurring had been patentable under § 101, the plants included in the scope of the 1930 and 1970 Acts could have been patented without new legislation. Those plants, like the bacteria involved in this case, were new varieties not naturally occurring.3 Although the Court, ante, at 311, rejects this line of argument, it does not explain why the Acts were necessary unless to correct a pre-existing situation.4 I cannot share the Court’s implicit assumption that Congress was engaged in either idle exercises or mere correction of the public record when it enacted the 1930 and 1970 Acts. And Congress certainly thought it was doing something significant. The Committee Reports contain expansive prose about the previously unavailable benefits to be derived from extending patent protection to plants.5 H. R. *321Rep. No. 91-1605, pp. 1-3 (1970); S. Rep. No. 315, 71st Cong., 2d Sess., 1-3 (1930). Because Congress thought it had to legislate in order to make agricultural “human-made inventions” patentable and because the legislation Congress enacted is limited, it follows that Congress never meant to make items outside the scope of the legislation patentable.

Second, the 1970 Act clearly indicates that Congress has included bacteria within the focus of its legislative concern, but not within the scope of patent protection. Congress specifically excluded bacteria from the coverage of the 1970 Act. 7 U. S. C. § 2402 (a). The Court’s attempts to supply explanations for this explicit exclusion ring hollow. It is true that there is no mention in the legislative history of the exclusion, but that does not give us license to invent reasons. The fact is that Congress, assuming that animate objects as to which it had not specifically legislated could not be patented, excluded bacteria from the set of patentable organisms.

The Court protests that its holding today is dictated by the broad language of § 101, which cannot “be confined to the ‘particular application [s] . . . contemplated by the legislators.’ ” Ante, at 315, quoting Barr v. United States, 324 U. S. 83, 90 (1945). But as I have shown, the Court’s decision does not follow the unavoidable implications of the statute. Rather, it extends the patent system to cover living material *322even though Congress plainly has-legislated in the belief that § 101 does not encompass living organisms. It is the role of Congress, not this Court, to broaden or narrow the reach of the patent laws. This is especially true where, as here, the composition sought to be patented uniquely implicates matters of public concern.

Mr. Justice Miller

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error to the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York.

Plaintiff is a lithographer and defendant a photographer, with large business in those lines in the city of New York. .

The suit was commenced by an action at law in which Sarony was plaintiff and the lithographic company was defendant, the plaintiff charging the defendant with violating his copyright in regard to a photograph, the title of which is “ Oscar Wilde No. 18:” A jury being waived, the court made a finding of facts on which a judgment in.favor of the plaintiff was rendered for the sum of $600 for the plates and 85,000 copies sold and exposed to sale, and $10 for copies found in his possession, as penalties under section 4965 of the Revised Statutes.

Among the findings of fact made by the court the following presents the principal question raised by the assignment of errors in the case :

“ 3. That the plaintiff about the month of January, 1882, under an agreement with Oscar Wilde, became and was the author, inventor, designer, and proprietor of the photograph in suit, the title of which is ‘Oscar Wilde No. 18,’ being the number used to designate this particular photograph and of the negative thereof; that the same is' a useful, new, harmonious, characteristic, and graceful picture, and that said plaintiff made the same at his place of business in said city of New York, and within the United States, entirely from his own *55original mental conception, to which he gave visible form by posing the said Oscar Wilde in front of the camera, selecting and arranging the costume, draperies, and other various accessories in said photograph, arranging the subject so as to present graceful outlines, arranging and disposing the light and shade, suggesting and evoking the desired expression, and from such disposition, arrangement, or representation, made entirely by the plaintiff, he produced the picture in suit, Exhibit A, April 14th, 1882, and that the terms ‘author,’ ‘inventor,’ and ‘designer,’ as used in the art of photography and in the complaint, mean the person Avho so produced the photograph.”

Other findings leave no doubt that plaintiff had taken all the steps required by the act of Congress to obtain copyright of this photograph, and section 4952 names photographs among other things for which the author, inventor, or designer may obtain copyright, Avhich is to secure him the sole privilege of reprinting, publishing, .copying and vending the same. That defendant is liable under that section and section 4965 there can be no question, if those sections are valid as they relate to photographs.

Accordingly, the two assignments of error in this court by plaintiff in error, are:

1. That the court below, decided that Congress had and has the constitutional right to protect photographs and negatives thereof by copyright.

The second assignment related to the sufficiency of the. Avords “ Copyright, 1882, by N. Sarony,” in the photographs, as a notice of the copyright of Napoleon Sarony under the act of Congress on that subject.

With regard to this latter question, it is enough to say, that the object of the statute is to give notice of the copyright to the public, by placing upon each copy, in some visible shape, the name of the author, the existence of the claim of exclusive right, and the date at which this right Avas obtained.

This notice is sufficiently given by the words “ Copyright, • 1882, by N. Sarony,” found on each copy of the photograph. It clearly shoAvs that a copyright is asserted, the date of Avhich is 1882, and if the name Sarony alone Avas used, it would be a *56sufficient designation of the author until it is shown that there is some other Sarony.

When, in addition to this, the initial letter of the Christian name Napoleon is also given, the notice is complete.

The constitutional question is not free from difficulty:

The'eighth section of the first article of the Constitution is the great repository of the powers of Congress, and by the eighth clause of that section Congress is authorized:

“ To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing, for limited times to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”

The argument here is, that a photograph is not a writing nor the production of an author. Under the acts of Congress designed to give effect to this section, the persons who are to be benefited are divided into two classes, authors and inventors. The monopoly which is granted to the former is called a copyright, that given to the latter, letters patent, or, in the familiar language of the present day, patent right.

We have, then, copyright and .patent right, and it is the first of these under which plaintiff asserts a claim for relief.

It is insisted in argument, that a photograph being a reproduction on paper of the exact features of some natural object or of some person, is not a writing of which the producer is the author.

Section 1952 of the Revised Statutes places photographs in the same class as things which may be copyrighted with “ books, maps, charts, dramatic or musical compositions, engravings, cuts, prints, paintings, drawings, statues, statuary, and models or designs intended to be perfected as works of the fine arts.” “ According to the practice of legislation in England and America,” says Judge Bouvier, 2 Law Dictionary, 303, “ the copyright is confined to the exclusive right secured to the author or proprietor .of a Avriting or draAving Avhich may be multiplied by the arts of printing in any of its branches.”

The first Congress of the United States, sitting immediately after the formation of the Constitution, enacted that the “ author or authors of any map, chart, book or books, being a *57'citizen or resident of the United States, shall have the sole right and liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing and vending the same for the period of fourteen years from the recording of the title' thereof in the clerk’s office, as afterwards directed.” 1 Stat. 124, 1.

This statute not only makes maps-and charts subjects of copyright, but mentions them before books in the order of designation. . The second section of an act to amend this act, approved April 29, 1802, 2 Stat. 171, enacts that from the first day of January thereafter, he who shall invent and design, engrave, etch or work, or from his own works shall cause to be designed and engraved, etched or worked, any historical or other print or prints shall have the same exclusive right for the term of fourteen years from recording the title thereof as prescribed by law.

By the first section of the act of February 3d, 1831,. 4 Stat. 436, entitled an act to amend the several acts respecting copyright, musical compositions and cuts, in connection with prints and engravings, are added, and the period of protection is ex: tended to twenty-eight years. The caption or title, of this act uses the word copyright for the first time in the legislation of Congress.

The construction placed upon the Constitution by the first act of 1790, and the act of 1802, by the men who were contemporary with its formation, many of whom were members of the convention which framed it, is of itself entitled to very great weight,, and when it is remembered that the rights thus established have not been disputed during a period of nearly a century, it is almost conclusive.

Unless, therefore, photographs can be distinguished in the classification on this point from the maps, charts, designs, engravings,' etchings, cuts, and other prints, it is difficult to see why Congress cannot make them the subject of copyright as well as the others.

These statutes certainly answer the objection that books only, or writing in the limited sense of a book and its author, are within the constitutional provision. Both these words are susceptible of a more enlarged definition than this. An author in *58that sense is “ he to whom anything owes its origin; originator; maker; one who completes' a work of science or literature.” Worcester. So, also, no one would now claim that the word writing in this clause of the Constitution, though the only word used as to subjects in regard to which authors are to be secured, is limited to the. actual script of the author, and excludes books and all other-printed matter. By writings in that clause is meant the literary productions of those authors, and Congress very properly has declared these to include all forms of writing, printing, engraving, etching, &c., by which the ideas in the mind of the author are given visible expression. The only reason why photographs were not included in the extended list in the act of 1802 is probably that they did not exist, as photography .as an art was then unknown, and the scientific principle on which it rests, and the chemicals and machinery by which it is operated, have all been discovered long since that statute was enacted.

Nor is it to be supposed that the framers of the Constitution did not understand the nature of copyright and the objects to which it was commonly applied, for copyright, as the’exclusive right of a man to the production of his own genius or intellect, existed in England at that time, and the contest in the English courts, finally decided by a very close vote in the House of Lords, whether the statute of 8 Anne, chap. 19, which authorized copyright for a limited time, was a restraint to that extent on the common law or not, was then recent. It had. attracted much attention, as the judgment of the King’s Bench, delivered by Lord Mansfield, holding it was not such a restraint, in Miller v. Taylor, 4 Burrows, 2303, decided in 1769, was overruled on appeal in the House of Lords in 1774. Ibid. 2408. In this and other cases the whole question of the exclusive right to literary and intellectual productions had been freely discussed.

Ve entertain no doubt that the Constitution is broad enough to cover an act authorizing copyright of photographs, so far as they are representatives of original intellectual conceptions of the author.

But it is said that an engraving, a painting, a print, does em*59body the intellectual conception of its author, in which there is novelty, invention, originality, and therefore comes within the purpose of the Constitution in securing its exclusive use or sale to its author, while the photograph is the mere mechanical reproduction of the physical features or outlines of some object animate or inanimate, and involves no originality of thought or any novelty in the intellectual operation connected with its visible reproduction in shape of a picture. That while the effect of light on the prepared plate may have been a discovery in the production of these pictures, and patents could properly be obtained for the combination of the chemicals, for their application to the paper or other surface, for all the machinery by which the light reflected from the object was thrown on the prepared plate, and for all the improvements in this machinery, and in the materials, the remainder of the process is merely mechanical, with no place for novelty, invention or originality. It is simply the manual operation, by the use of these instruments and preparations, of transferring to the plate the visible representation of some existing object, the accuracy of this representation being its highest merit.

■This may be true in regard to the ordinary production of a photograph, and, further, that in such case a copyright is no protection. On the question as thus stated we decide nothing.

In regard, however, to the kindred subject of patents for invention, they cannot by law be issued to the inventor until the novelty, the utility, and the actual discovery or invention by the claimant have been established by proof before the Commissioner of Patents; and when he has secured such a patent, and undertakes to obtain redress for a violation of his right in a court of law, the question of invention, of novelty, of originality, is always open to examination. Our copyright system has no such provision for previous examination by a proper tribunal as to the originality of the book, map, or other matter offered for copyright. A deposit of two copies of the article or work with the Librarian of Congress, with the name of the author and its title page, is all that is necessary to secure a copyright. It is, therefore, much more important that when the supposed author sues for a violation of his copyright, the *60existence of those facts of originality, of intellectual production, of thought, and conception on the part of the author should be proved, than in the case of a patent right.

In the case before us we think this has been done.

The third finding of facts says, in regard to the photograph in question, that it is a “ useful, new, harmonious, characteristic, and graceful picture, and that plaintiff made the same . . . entirely from his own original mental conception, to which he gave visible form by posing the said Oscar Wilde in front of the camera, selecting and arranging the costume, draperies, and other various accessories in said photograph, arranging the subject so as to present graceful outlines, arranging and disposing the light and shade, suggesting and evoking the desired expression, and from such disposition, arrangement, or representation, made entirely by plaintiff, he produced the picture in suit.”

These findings, we think, show this photograph to be an original work of art, the product of plaintiff’s intellectual invention, of which plaintiff is the author, and of a class of inventions for which the Constitution intended that Congress should secure to him the exclusive right to use, publish and sell, as it has done by section 4952 of the Revised Statutes.

The question here presented is one of first impression under our Constitution, but an instructive case of the same class, is that of Nottage v. Jackson, 11 Q. B. D. 627, decided in that court on appeal, August, 1883.

The first section of the act of 25 and 26 Victoria, chap. 68, authorizes the author of a photograph, upon making registry of it under the copyright act of 18S2, to have a monopoly of its reproduction and multiplication during the life of the author.

The plaintiffs in that case described themselves as the authors of the photograph which was pirated, in the registration of it. It appeared that they had arranged with the captain of the Australian cricketers to take a photograph of the whole team in a group; and they sent one of the artists in their employ from London to some country town to do it.

The question in the case was whether the plaintiffs, who owned the establishment in London, where the' photographs *61were made from, the negative and were sold, and who had the negative taken by one of. their men, were the authors, or the man who, for their benefit, took the negative. It was held that the latter was the author, and the action failed, because plaintiffs had described themselves as authors.

Brett, M. R., said, in regard to who ivas the author: “ The nearest I can come to, is that it is the person who effectively is as near as he can be, the cause, of the picture which is produced, that is, the person who has superintended the arrangement, who has actually formed the picture by putting the persons in position, and arranging the place where the people are to be— the man who-.is the effective cause of that.”

Lord Justice Cotton said: “In my opinion, ‘author’ in volves originating, making, producing, as the inventive or master mind, the thing which is to be protected, whether it be a drawing, or a painting, or a photograph; ” and Lord Justice Bowen says that photography is to be treated for the purposes of the act as an art, and the author is the man who really represents, creates, or gives effect to the idea, fancy, or imagination.

The appeal of plaintiffs from the original judgment against ' them was accordingly dismissed.

These views of the nature of authorship and of originality,' intellectual creation, and right to protection confirm what we have already said.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is accordingly 'affirmed. r

Justice Breyer

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question in this case is whether the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act), 15 U. S. C. §§ 1051-1127 (1988 ed. and Supp. V), permits the registration of a trademark that con*161sists, purely and simply, of a color. We conclude that, sometimes, a color will meet ordinary legal trademark requirements. And, when it does so, no special legal rule prevents color alone from serving as a trademark.

I

The case before us grows out of petitioner Qualitex Company’s use (since the 1950’s) of a special shade of green-gold color on the pads that it makes and sells to dry cleaning firms for use on dry cleaning presses. In 1989, respondent Jacobson Products (a Qualitex rival) began to sell its own press pads to dry cleaning firms; and it colored those pads a similar green gold. In 1991, Qualitex registered the special green-gold color on press pads with the Patent and Trademark Office as a trademark. Registration No. 1,633,711 (Feb. 5, 1991). Qualitex subsequently added a trademark infringement count, 15 U. S. C. § 1114(1), to an unfair competition claim* § 1125(a), in a lawsuit it had already filed challenging Jacobson’s use of the green-gold color.

Qualitex won the lawsuit in the District Court. 21 U. S. P. Q. 2d 1457 (CD Cal. 1991). But, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit set aside the judgment in Qualitex’s favor on the trademark infringement claim because, in that Circuit’s view, the Lanham Act does not permit Qualitex, or anyone else, to register “color alone” as a trademark. 13 F. 3d 1297, 1300, 1302 (1994).

The Courts of Appeals have differed as to whether or not the law recognizes the use of color alone as a trademark. Compare NutraSweet Co. v. Stadt Corp., 917 F. 2d 1024, 1028 (CA7 1990) (absolute prohibition against protection of color alone), with In re Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 774 F. 2d 1116, 1128 (CA Fed. 1985) (allowing registration of color pink for fiberglass insulation), and Master Distributors, Inc. v. Pako Corp., 986 F. 2d 219, 224 (CA8 1993) (declining to establish per se prohibition against protecting color alone as a trademark). Therefore, this Court granted certiorari. 512 *162U. S. 1287 (1994). We now hold that there is no rule absolutely barring the use of color alone, and we reverse the judgment of the Ninth Circuit.

II

The Lanham Act gives a seller or producer the exclusive right to “register” a trademark, 15 U. S. C. § 1052 (1988 ed. and Supp. V), and to prevent his or her competitors from using that trademark, § 1114(1). Both the language of the Act and the basic underlying principles of trademark law would seem to include color within the universe of things that can qualify as a trademark. The language of the Lanham Act describes that universe in the broadest of terms. It says that trademarks “includ[e] any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof.” §1127. Since human beings might use as a “symbol” or “device” almost anything at all that is capable of carrying meaning, this language, read literally, is not restrictive. The courts and the Patent and Trademark Office have authorized for use as a mark a particular shape (of a Coca-Cola bottle), a particular sound (of NBC’s three chimes), and even a particular scent (of plumeria blossoms on sewing thread). See, e. g., Registration No. 696,147 (Apr. 12,1960); Registration Nos. 523,616 (Apr. 4, 1950) and 916,522 (July 13, 1971); In re Clarke, 17 U. S. P. Q. 2d 1238, 1240 (TTAB 1990). If a shape, a sound, and a fragrance can act as symbols why, one might ask, can a color not do the same?

A color is also capable of satisfying the more important part of the statutory definition of a trademark, which requires that a person “us[e]” or “inten[d] to use” the mark

“to identify and distinguish his or her goods, including a unique product, from those manufactured or sold by others and to indicate the source of the goods, even if that source is unknown.” 15 U. S. C. § 1127.

True, a product’s color is unlike “fanciful,” “arbitrary,” or “suggestive” words or designs, which almost automatically *163tell a customer that they refer to a brand. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F. 2d 4, 9-10 (CA2 1976) (Friendly, J.); see Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U. S. 763, 768 (1992). The imaginary word “Suntost,” or the words “Suntost Marmalade,” on a jar of orange jam immediately would signal a brand or a product “source”; the jam’s orange color does not do so. But, over time, customers may come to treat a particular color on a product or its packaging (say, a color that in context seems unusual, such as pink on a firm’s insulating material or red on the head of a large industrial bolt) as signifying a brand. And, if so, that color would have come to identify and distinguish the goods — i. e., “to indicate” their “source” — much in the way that descriptive words on a product (say, “Trim” on nail clippers or “Car-Freshner” on deodorizer) can come to indicate a product’s origin. See, e. g., J. Wiss & Sons Co. v. W. E. Bassett Co., 59 C. C. P. A. 1269, 1271 (Pat.), 462 F. 2d 567, 569 (1972); Car-Freshner Corp. v. Turtle Wax, Inc., 268 F. Supp. 162,164 (SDNY 1967). In this circumstance, trademark law says that the word (e. g., “Trim”), although not inherently distinctive, has developed “secondary meaning.” See Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U. S. 844, 851, n. 11 (1982) (“[Secondary meaning” is acquired when “in the minds of the public, the primary significance of a product feature ... is to identify the source of the product rather than the product itself”). Again, one might ask, if trademark law permits a descriptive word with secondary meaning to act as a mark, why would it not permit a color, under similar circumstances, to do the same?

We cannot find in the basic objectives of trademark law any obvious theoretical objection to the use of color alone as a trademark, where that color has attained “secondary meaning” and therefore identifies and distinguishes a particular brand (and thus indicates its “source”). In principle, trademark law, by preventing others from copying a source-identifying mark, “reduce[s] the customer’s costs of shopping *164and making purchasing decisions,” 1 J. McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition §2.01[2], p. 2-3 (3d ed. 1994) (hereinafter McCarthy), for it quickly and easily assures a potential customer that this item — the item with this mark — is made by the same producer as other similarly marked items that he or she liked (or disliked) in the past. At the same time, the law helps assure a producer that it (and not an imitating competitor) will reap the financial, reputation-related rewards associated with a desirable product. The law thereby “encourage[s] the production of quality products,” ibid., and simultaneously discourages those who hope to sell inferior products by capitalizing on a consumer’s inability quickly to evaluate the quality of an item offered for sale. See, e. g., 3 L. Altman, Callmann on Unfair Competition, Trademarks and Monopolies § 17.03 (4th ed. 1983); Landes & Posner, The Economics of Trademark Law, 78 T. M. Rep. 267, 271-272 (1988); Park ’N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U. S. 189, 198 (1985); S. Rep. No. 100-515, p. 4 (1988). It is the source-distinguishing ability of a mark — not its ontological status as color, shape, fragrance, word, or sign — that permits it to serve these basic purposes. See Landes & Posner, Trademark Law: An Economic Perspective, 30 J. Law & Econ. 265, 290 (1987). And, for that reason, it is difficult to find, in basic trademark objectives, a reason to disqualify absolutely the use of a color as a mark.

Neither can we find a principled objection to the use of color as a mark in the important “functionality” doctrine of trademark law. The functionality doctrine prevents trademark law, which seeks to promote competition by protecting a firm’s reputation, from instead inhibiting legitimate competition by allowing a producer to control a useful product feature. It is the province of patent law, not trademark law, to encourage invention by granting inventors a monopoly over new product designs or functions for a limited time, 35 U. S. C. §§ 154, 173, after which competitors are free to use the innovation. If a product’s functional features could be *165used as trademarks, however, a monopoly over such features could be obtained without regard to whether they qualify as patents and could be extended forever (because trademarks may be renewed in perpetuity). See Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U. S. 111, 119-120 (1938) (Brandéis, J.); Inwood Laboratories, Inc., supra, at 863 (White, J., concurring in result) (“A functional characteristic is ‘an important ingredient in the commercial success of the product,’ and, after expiration of a patent, it is no more the property of the originator than the product itself”) (citation omitted). Functionality doctrine therefore would require, to take an imaginary example, that even if customers have come to identify the special illumination-enhancing shape of a new patented light bulb with a particular manufacturer, the manufacturer may not use that shape as a trademark, for doing so, after the patent had expired, would impede competition — not by protecting the reputation of the original bulb maker, but by frustrating competitors’ legitimate efforts to produce an equivalent illumination-enhancing bulb. See, e. g., Kellogg Co., supra, at 119-120 (trademark law cannot be used to extend monopoly over “pillow” shape of shredded wheat biscuit after the patent for that shape had expired). This Court consequently has explained that, “[i]n general terms, a product feature is functional,” and cannot serve as a trademark, “if it is essential to the use or purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or quality of the article,” that is, if exclusive use of the feature would put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage. Inwood Laboratories, Inc., supra, at 850, n. 10. Although sometimes color plays an important role (unrelated to source identification) in making a product more desirable, sometimes it does not. And, this latter fact — the fact that sometimes color is not essential to a product’s use or purpose and does not affect cost or quality — indicates that the doctrine of “functionality” does not create an absolute bar to the use of color alone as a mark. See Owens-Corning, 774 F. 2d, at 1123 (pink color of insulation in wall “performs no non-trademark function”).

*166It would seem, then, that color alone, at least sometimes, can meet the basic legal requirements for use as a trademark. It can act as a symbol that distinguishes a firm’s goods and identifies their source, without serving any other significant function. See U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure § 1202.04(e), p. 1202-13 (2d ed. May, 1993) (hereinafter PTO Manual) (approving trademark registration of color alone where it “has become distinctive of the applicant’s goods in commerce,” provided that “there is [no] competitive need for colors to remain available in the industry” and the color is not “functional”); see also 1 McCarthy §§3.01[1], 7.26, pp. 3-2, 7-113 (“requirements for qualification of a word or symbol as a trademark” are that it be (1) a “symbol,” (2) “use[d] ... as a mark,” (3) “to identify and distinguish the seller’s goods from goods made or sold by others,” but that it not be “functional”). Indeed, the District Court, in this case, entered findings (accepted by the Ninth Circuit) that show Qualitex’s green-gold press pad color has met these requirements. The green-gold color acts as a symbol. Having developed secondary meaning (for customers identified the green-gold color as Qualitex’s), it identifies the press pads’ source. And, the green-gold color serves no other function. (Although it is important to use some color on press pads to avoid noticeable stains, the court found “no competitive need in the press pad industry for the green-gold color, since other colors are equally usable.” 21 U. S. P. Q. 2d, at 1460.) Accordingly, unless there is some special reason that convincingly militates against the use of color alone as a trademark, trademark law would protect Qualitex’s use of the green-gold color on its press pads.

Ill

Respondent Jacobson Products says that there are four special reasons why the law should forbid the use of color *167alone as a trademark. We shall explain, in turn, why we, ultimately, find them unpersuasive.

First, Jacobson says that, if the law permits the use of color as a trademark, it will produce uncertainty and unresolvable court disputes about what shades of a color a competitor may lawfully use. Because lighting (morning sun, twilight mist) will affect perceptions of protected color, competitors and courts will suffer from “shade confusion” as they try to decide whether use of a similar color on a similar product does, or does not, confuse customers and thereby infringe a trademark. Jacobson adds that the “shade confusion” problem is “more difficult” and “far different from” the “determination of the similarity of words or symbols.” Brief for Respondent 22.

We do not believe, however, that color, in this respect, is special. Courts traditionally decide quite difficult questions about whether two words or phrases or symbols are sufficiently similar, in context, to confuse buyers. They have had to compare, for example, such words as “Bonamine” and “Dramamine” (motion-sickness remedies); “Huggies” and “Dougies” (diapers); “Cheracol” and “Syrocol” (cough syrup); “Cyclone” and “Tornado” (wire fences); and “Mattres” and “1-800-Mattres” (mattress franchisor telephone numbers). See, e. g., G. D. Searle & Co. v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., 265 F. 2d 385, 389 (CA7 1959); Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. H. Douglas Enterprises, Ltd., 774 F. 2d 1144, 1146-1147 (CA Fed. 1985); Upjohn Co. v. Schwartz, 246 F. 2d 254, 262 (CA2 1957); Hancock v. American Steel & Wire Co. of N. J., 40 C. C. R A. (Pat.) 931, 935, 203 F. 2d 737, 740-741 (1953); Dial-A-Mattress Franchise Corp. v. Page, 880 F. 2d 675, 678 (CA2 1989). Legal standards exist to guide courts in making such comparisons. See, e.g., 2 McCarthy §15.08; 1 McCarthy §§11.24-11.25 (“[S]trong” marks, with greater secondary meaning, receive broader protection than “weak” marks). We do not see why courts could not apply those standards to a color, replicating, if necessary, lighting conditions under *168which a colored product is normally sold. See Ebert, Trademark Protection in Color: Do It By the Numbers!, 84 T. M. Rep. 379, 405 (1994). Indeed, courts already have done so in cases where a trademark consists of a color plus a design, i. e., a colored symbol such as a gold stripe (around a sewer pipe), a yellow strand of wire rope, or a “brilliant yellow” band (on ampules). See, e. g., Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Tallman Conduit Co., 149 U. S. P. Q. 656, 657 (TTAB 1966); Amstead Industries, Inc. v. West Coast Wire Rope & Rigging Inc., 2 U. S. P. Q. 2d 1755, 1760 (TTAB 1987); In re Hodes-Lange Corp., 167 U. S. P. Q. 255, 256 (TTAB 1970).

Second, Jacobson argues, as have others, that colors are in limited supply. See, e. g., NutraSweet Co., 917 F. 2d, at 1028; Campbell Soup Co. v. Armour & Co., 175 F. 2d 795, 798 (CA3 1949). Jacobson claims that, if one of many competitors can appropriate a particular color for use as a trademark, and each competitor then tries to do the same, the supply of colors will soon be depleted. Put in its strongest form, this argument would concede that “[h]undreds of color pigments are manufactured and thousands of colors can be obtained by mixing.” L. Cheskin, Colors: What They Can Do For You 47 (1947). But, it would add that, in the context of a particular product, only some colors are usable. By the time one discards colors that, say, for reasons of customer appeal, are not usable, and adds the shades that competitors cannot use lest they risk infringing a similar, registered shade, then one is left with only a handful of possible colors. And, under these circumstances, to permit one, or a few, producers to use colors as trademarks will “deplete” the supply of usable colors to the point where a competitor’s inability to find a suitable color will put that competitor at a significant disadvantage.

This argument is unpersuasive, however, largely because it relies on an occasional problem to justify a blanket prohibition. When a color serves as a mark, normally alternative colors will likely be available for similar use by others. See, e.g., Owens-Corning, 774 F. 2d, at 1121 (pink insulation). *169Moreover, if that is not so — if a “color depletion” or “color scarcity” problem does arise — the trademark doctrine of “functionality” normally would seem available to prevent the anticompetitive consequences that Jacobson’s argument posits, thereby minimizing that argument’s practical force.

The functionality doctrine, as we have said, forbids the use of a product’s feature as a trademark where doing so will put a competitor at a significant disadvantage because the feature is “essential to the use or purpose of the article” or “affects [its] cost or quality.” Inwood Laboratories, Inc., 456 U. S., at 850, n. 10. The functionality doctrine thus protects competitors against a disadvantage (unrelated to recognition or reputation) that trademark protection might otherwise impose, namely, their inability reasonably to replicate important non-reputation-related product features. For example, this Court has written that competitors might be free to copy the color of a medical pill where that color serves to identify the kind of medication (e. g., a type of blood medicine) in addition to its source. See id., at 853, 858, n. 20 (“[S]ome patients commingle medications in a container and rely on color to differentiate one from another”); see also J. Ginsburg, D. Goldberg, & A. Greenbaum, Trademark and Unfair Competition Law 194-195 (1991) (noting that drug color cases “have more to do with public health policy” regarding generic drug substitution “than with trademark law”). And, the federal courts have demonstrated that they can apply this doctrine in a careful and reasoned manner, with sensitivity to the effect on competition. Although we need not comment on the merits of specific cases, we note that lower courts have permitted competitors to copy the green color of farm machinery (because customers wanted their farm equipment to match) and have barred the use of black as a trademark on outboard boat motors (because black has the special functional attributes of decreasing the apparent size of the motor and ensuring compatibility with many different boat colors). See Deere & Co. v. Farmhand, Inc., 560 *170F. Supp. 85, 98 (SD Iowa 1982), aff'd, 721 F. 2d 253 (CA8 1983); Brunswick Corp. v. British Seagull Ltd., 35 F. 3d 1527, 1532 (CA Fed. 1994), cert. pending, No. 94-1075; see also Nor-Am Chemical v. O. M. Scott & Sons Co., 4 U. S. P. Q. 2d 1316, 1320 (ED Pa. 1987) (blue color of fertilizer held functional because it indicated the presence of nitrogen). The Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition adds that, if a design’s “aesthetic value” lies in its ability to “confe[r] a significant benefit that cannot practically be duplicated by the use of alternative designs,” then the design is “functional.” Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition § 17, Comment c, pp. 175-176 (1993). The “ultimate test of aesthetic functionality,” it explains, “is whether the recognition of trademark rights would significantly hinder competition.” Id., at 176.

The upshot is that, where a color serves a significant non-trademark function — whether to distinguish a heart pill from a digestive medicine or to satisfy the “noble instinct for giving the right touch of beauty to common and necessary things,” G. Chesterton, Simplicity and Tolstoy 61 (1912)— courts will examine whether its use as a mark would permit one competitor (or a group) to interfere with legitimate (nontrademark-related) competition through actual or potential exclusive use of an important product ingredient. That examination should not discourage firms from creating esthetically pleasing mark designs, for it is open to their competitors to do the same. See, e. g., W. T. Rogers Co. v. Keene, 778 F. 2d 334, 343 (CA7 1985) (Posner, J.). But, ordinarily, it should prevent the anticompetitive consequences of Jacobson’s hypothetical “color depletion” argument, when, and if, the circumstances of a particular case threaten “color depletion.”

Third, Jacobson points to many older cases — including Supreme Court cases — in support of its position. In 1878, this Court described the common-law definition of trademark rather broadly to “consist of a name, symbol, figure, letter, form, or device, if adopted and used by a manufacturer or *171merchant in order to designate the goods he manufactures or sells to distinguish the same from those manufactured or sold by another.” McLean v. Fleming, 96 U. S. 245, 254. Yet, in interpreting the Trademark Acts of 1881 and 1905, 21 Stat. 502, 33 Stat. 724, which retained that common-law definition, the Court questioned “[wjhether mere color can constitute a valid trade-mark,” A. Leschen & Sons Rope Co. v. Broderick & Bascom Rope Co., 201 U. S. 166, 171 (1906), and suggested that the “product including the coloring matter is free to all who make it,” Coca-Cola Co. v. Koke Co. of America, 254 U. S. 143, 147 (1920). Even though these statements amounted to dicta, lower courts interpreted them as forbidding protection for color alone. See, e. g., Campbell Soup Co., 175 F. 2d, at 798, and n. 9; Life Savers Corp. v. Curtiss Candy Co., 182 F. 2d 4, 9 (CA7 1950) (quoting Campbell Soup, supra, at 798).

These Supreme Court cases, however, interpreted trademark law as it existed before 1946, when Congress enacted the Lanham Act. The Lanham Act significantly changed and liberalized the common law to “dispense with mere technical prohibitions,” S. Rep. No. 1333, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., 3 (1946), most notably, by permitting trademark registration of descriptive words (say, “U-Build-It” model airplanes) where they had acquired “secondary meaning.” See Abercrombie & Fitch Co., 537 F. 2d, at 9 (Friendly, J.). The Lanham Act extended protection to descriptive marks by making clear that (with certain explicit exceptions not relevant here)

“nothing . . . shall prevent the registration of a mark used by the applicant which has become distinctive of the applicant’s goods in commerce.” 15 U. S. C. § 1052(f) (1988 ed., Supp. V).

This language permits an ordinary word, normally used for a nontrademark purpose (e. g., description), to act as a trademark where it has gained “secondary meaning.” Its logic *172would appear to apply to color as well. Indeed, in 1985, the Federal Circuit considered the significance of the Lanham Act’s changes as they related to color and held that trademark protection for color was consistent with the

“jurisprudence under the Lanham Act developed in accordance with the statutory principle that if a mark is capable of being or becoming distinctive of [the] applicant’s goods in commerce, then it is capable of serving as a trademark.” Owens-Corning, 774 F. 2d, at 1120.

In 1988, Congress amended the Lanham Act, revising portions of the definitional language, but left unchanged the language here relevant. § 134, 102 Stat. 3946, 15 U. S. C. § 1127. It enacted these amendments against the following background: (1) the Federal Circuit had decided Owens-Coming; (2) the Patent and Trademark Office had adopted a clear policy (which it still maintains) permitting registration of color as a trademark, see PTO Manual § 1202.04(e) (at p. 1200-12 of the January 1986 edition and p. 1202-13 of the May 1993 edition); and (3) the Trademark Commission had written a report, which recommended that “the terms ‘symbol, or device’ . . . not be deleted or narrowed to preclude registration of such things as a color, shape, smell, sound, or configuration which functions as a mark,” The United States Trademark Association Trademark Review Commission Report and Recommendations to USTA President and Board of Directors, 77 T. M. Rep. 375, 421 (1987); see also 133 Cong. Rec. 32812 (1987) (statement of Sen. DeConcini) (“The bill I am introducing today is based on the Commission’s report and recommendations”). This background strongly suggests that the language “any word, name, symbol, or device,” 15 U. S. C. § 1127, had come to include color. And, when it amended the statute, Congress retained these terms. Indeed, the Senate Report accompanying the Lanham Act revision explicitly referred to this background understanding, in saying that the “revised definition intentionally retains . . . *173the words ‘symbol or device’ so as not to preclude the registration of colors, shapes, sounds or configurations where they function as trademarks.” S. Rep. No. 100-515, at 44. (In addition, the statute retained language providing that “[n]o trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration ... on account of its nature” (except for certain specified reasons not relevant here). 15 U. S. C. § 1052 (1988 ed., Supp. V).)

This history undercuts the authority of the precedent on which Jacobson relies. Much of the pre-1985 case law rested on statements in Supreme Court opinions that interpreted pre-Lanham Act trademark law and were not directly related to the holdings in those cases. Moreover, we believe the Federal Circuit was right in 1985 when it found that the 1946 Lanham Act embodied crucial legal changes that liberalized the law to permit the use of color alone as a trademark (under appropriate circumstances). At a minimum, the Lanham Act’s changes left the courts free to reevaluate the preexisting legal precedent which had absolutely forbidden the use of color alone as a trademark. Finally, when Congress reenacted the terms “word, name, symbol, or device” in 1988, it did so against a legal background in which those terms had come to include color, and its statutory revision embraced that understanding.

Fourth, Jacobson argues that there is no need to permit color alone to function as a trademark because a firm already may use color as part of a trademark, say, as a colored circle or colored letter or colored word, and may rely upon “trade dress” protection, under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, if a competitor copies its color and thereby causes consumer confusion regarding the overall appearance of the competing products or their packaging, see 15 U. S. C. § 1125(a) (1988 ed., Supp. V). The first part of this argument begs the question. One can understand why a firm might find it difficult to place a usable symbol or word on a product (say, a large industrial *174bolt that customers normally see from a distance); and, in such instances, a firm might want to use color, pure and simple, instead of color as part of a design. Neither is the second portion of the argument convincing. Trademark law helps the holder of a mark in many ways that “trade dress” protection does not. See 15 U. S. C. § 1124 (ability to prevent importation of confusingly similar goods); § 1072 (constructive notice of ownership); § 1065 (incontestible status); § 1057(b) (prima facie evidence of validity and ownership). Thus, one can easily find reasons why the law might provide trademark protection in addition to trade dress protection.

IV

Having determined that a color may sometimes meet the basic legal requirements for use as a trademark and that respondent Jacobson’s arguments do not justify a special legal rule preventing color alone from serving as a trademark (and, in light of the District Court’s here undisputed findings that Qualitex’s use of the green-gold color on its press pads meets the basic trademark requirements), we conclude that the Ninth Circuit erred in barring Qualitex’s use of color as a trademark. For these reasons, the judgment of the Ninth Circuit is

Reversed.

Justice GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court.

*2301This case concerns eligibility for federal trademark registration. Respondent Booking.com, an enterprise that maintains a travel-reservation website by the same name, sought to register the mark "Booking.com." Concluding that "Booking.com" is a generic name for online hotel-reservation services, the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) refused registration.

A generic name-the name of a class of products or services-is ineligible for federal trademark registration. The word "booking," the parties do not dispute, is generic for hotel-reservation services. "Booking.com" must also be generic, the PTO maintains, under an encompassing rule the PTO currently urges us to adopt: The combination of a generic word and ".com" is generic.

In accord with the first- and second-instance judgments in this case, we reject the PTO's sweeping rule. A term styled "generic.com" is a generic name for a class of goods or services only if the term has that meaning to consumers. Consumers, according to lower court determinations uncontested here by the PTO, do not perceive the term "Booking.com" to signify online hotel-reservation services as a class. In circumstances like those this case presents, a "generic.com" term is not generic and can be eligible for federal trademark registration.

*2302I

A

A trademark distinguishes one producer's goods or services from another's. Guarding a trademark against use by others, this Court has explained, "secure[s] to the owner of the mark the goodwill" of her business and "protect[s] the ability of consumers to distinguish among competing producers." Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc. , 469 U.S. 189, 105 S.Ct. 658, 83 L.Ed.2d 582, 198 (1985) ; see S. Rep. No. 1333, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., 3 (1946) (trademark statutes aim to "protect the public so it may be confident that, in purchasing a product bearing a particular trade-mark which it favorably knows, it will get the product which it asks for and wants to get"). Trademark protection has roots in common law and equity. Matal v. Tam , 582 U. S. ----, ----, 137 S.Ct. 1744, 1751, 198 L.Ed.2d 366 (2017). Today, the Lanham Act, enacted in 1946, provides federal statutory protection for trademarks. 60 Stat. 427, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. We have recognized that federal trademark protection, supplementing state law, "supports the free flow of commerce" and "foster[s] competition." Matal , 582 U. S., at ----, ---- - ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1751-1752, 1752-1753 (internal quotation marks omitted).

The Lanham Act not only arms trademark owners with federal claims for relief; importantly, it establishes a system of federal trademark registration. The owner of a mark on the principal register enjoys "valuable benefits," including a presumption that the mark is valid. Iancu v. Brunetti , 588 U. S. ----, ----, 139 S.Ct. 2294, 2297-2298, 204 L.Ed.2d 714 (2019) ; see §§ 1051, 1052. The supplemental register contains other product and service designations, some of which could one day gain eligibility for the principal register. See § 1091. The supplemental register accords more modest benefits; notably, a listing on that register announces one's use of the designation to others considering a similar mark. See 3 J. McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 19:37 (5th ed. 2019) (hereinafter McCarthy). Even without federal registration, a mark may be eligible for protection against infringement under both the Lanham Act and other sources of law. See Matal , 582 U. S., at ---- - ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1752-1753.

Prime among the conditions for registration, the mark must be one "by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others." § 1052 ; see § 1091(a) (supplemental register contains "marks capable of distinguishing ... goods or services"). Distinctiveness is often expressed on an increasing scale: Word marks "may be (1) generic; (2) descriptive; (3) suggestive; (4) arbitrary; or (5) fanciful." Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. , 505 U.S. 763, 768, 112 S.Ct. 2753, 120 L.Ed.2d 615 (1992).

The more distinctive the mark, the more readily it qualifies for the principal register. The most distinctive marks-those that are " 'arbitrary' ('Camel' cigarettes), 'fanciful' ('Kodak' film), or 'suggestive' ('Tide' laundry detergent)"-may be placed on the principal register because they are "inherently distinctive." Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc. , 529 U.S. 205, 210-211, 120 S.Ct. 1339, 146 L.Ed.2d 182 (2000). "Descriptive" terms, in contrast, are not eligible for the principal register based on their inherent qualities alone. E.g. , Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc. , 718 F.2d 327, 331 (CA9 1983) ("Park 'N Fly" airport parking is descriptive), rev'd on other grounds, 469 U.S. 189, 105 S.Ct. 658, 83 L.Ed.2d 582 (1985). The Lanham Act, "liberaliz[ing] the common law," "extended protection to descriptive *2303marks." Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co. , 514 U.S. 159, 171, 115 S.Ct. 1300, 131 L.Ed.2d 248 (1995). But to be placed on the principal register, descriptive terms must achieve significance "in the minds of the public" as identifying the applicant's goods or services-a quality called "acquired distinctiveness" or "secondary meaning." Wal-Mart Stores , 529 U.S. at 211, 120 S.Ct. 1339 (internal quotation marks omitted); see § 1052(e), (f). Without secondary meaning, descriptive terms may be eligible only for the supplemental register. § 1091(a).

At the lowest end of the distinctiveness scale is "the generic name for the goods or services." §§ 1127, 1064(3), 1065(4). The name of the good itself (e.g. , "wine") is incapable of "distinguish[ing] [one producer's goods] from the goods of others" and is therefore ineligible for registration. § 1052 ; see § 1091(a). Indeed, generic terms are ordinarily ineligible for protection as trademarks at all. See Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition § 15, p. 142 (1993); Otokoyama Co. v. Wine of Japan Import, Inc. , 175 F.3d 266, 270 (CA2 1999) ("[E]veryone may use [generic terms] to refer to the goods they designate.").

B

Booking.com is a digital travel company that provides hotel reservations and other services under the brand "Booking.com," which is also the domain name of its website.1 Booking.com filed applications to register four marks in connection with travel-related services, each with different visual features but all containing the term "Booking.com."2

Both a PTO examining attorney and the PTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board concluded that the term "Booking.com" is generic for the services at issue and is therefore unregistrable. "Booking," the Board observed, means making travel reservations, and ".com" signifies a commercial website. The Board then ruled that "customers would understand the term BOOKING.COM primarily to refer to an online reservation service for travel, tours, and lodgings." App. to Pet. for Cert. 164a, 176a. Alternatively, the Board held that even if "Booking.com" is descriptive, not generic, it is unregistrable because it lacks secondary meaning.

Booking.com sought review in the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, invoking a mode of review that allows Booking.com to introduce evidence not presented to the agency. See § 1071(b). Relying in significant part on Booking.com's new evidence of consumer perception, the District Court concluded that "Booking.com"-unlike "booking"-is not generic. The "consuming public," the court found, "primarily understands that BOOKING.COM does not refer to a genus, rather it is descriptive of services involving 'booking' available at that domain name." Booking.com B.V. v. Matal , 278 F.Supp.3d 891, 918 (2017). Having determined that "Booking.com" is descriptive, the District Court additionally found that the term has acquired secondary meaning as to hotel-reservation services. For those services, the District Court therefore concluded, *2304Booking.com's marks meet the distinctiveness requirement for registration.

The PTO appealed only the District Court's determination that "Booking.com" is not generic. Finding no error in the District Court's assessment of how consumers perceive the term "Booking.com," the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the court of first instance's judgment. In so ruling, the appeals court rejected the PTO's contention that the combination of ".com" with a generic term like "booking" "is necessarily generic." 915 F. 3d 171, 184 (2019). Dissenting in relevant part, Judge Wynn concluded that the District Court mistakenly presumed that "generic.com" terms are usually descriptive, not generic.

We granted certiorari, 589 U. S. ----, 140 S.Ct. 489, 205 L.Ed.2d 290 (2019), and now affirm the Fourth Circuit's decision.

II

Although the parties here disagree about the circumstances in which terms like "Booking.com" rank as generic, several guiding principles are common ground. First, a "generic" term names a "class" of goods or services, rather than any particular feature or exemplification of the class. Brief for Petitioners 4; Brief for Respondent 6; see §§ 1127, 1064(3), 1065(4) (referring to "the generic name for the goods or services"); Park 'N Fly , 469 U.S. at 194, 105 S.Ct. 658 ("A generic term is one that refers to the genus of which the particular product is a species."). Second, for a compound term, the distinctiveness inquiry trains on the term's meaning as a whole, not its parts in isolation. Reply Brief 9; Brief for Respondent 2; see Estate of P. D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Commissioner of Patents , 252 U.S. 538, 545-546, 40 S.Ct. 414, 64 L.Ed. 705 (1920). Third, the relevant meaning of a term is its meaning to consumers. Brief for Petitioners 43-44; Brief for Respondent 2; see Bayer Co. v. United Drug Co. , 272 F. 505, 509 (SDNY 1921) (Hand, J.) ("What do the buyers understand by the word for whose use the parties are contending?"). Eligibility for registration, all agree, turns on the mark's capacity to "distinguis[h]" goods "in commerce." § 1052. Evidencing the Lanham Act's focus on consumer perception, the section governing cancellation of registration provides that "[t]he primary significance of the registered mark to the relevant public ... shall be the test for determining whether the registered mark has become the generic name of goods or services." § 1064(3).3

Under these principles, whether "Booking.com" is generic turns on whether that term, taken as a whole, signifies to consumers the class of online hotel-reservation services. Thus, if "Booking.com" were generic, we might expect consumers to understand Travelocity-another such *2305service-to be a "Booking.com." We might similarly expect that a consumer, searching for a trusted source of online hotel-reservation services, could ask a frequent traveler to name her favorite "Booking.com" provider.

Consumers do not in fact perceive the term "Booking.com" that way, the courts below determined. The PTO no longer disputes that determination. See Pet. for Cert. I; Brief for Petitioners 17-18 (contending only that a consumer-perception inquiry was unnecessary, not that the lower courts' consumer-perception determination was wrong). That should resolve this case: Because "Booking.com" is not a generic name to consumers, it is not generic.

III

Opposing that conclusion, the PTO urges a nearly per se rule that would render "Booking.com" ineligible for registration regardless of specific evidence of consumer perception. In the PTO's view, which the dissent embraces, when a generic term is combined with a generic top-level domain like ".com," the resulting combination is generic. In other words, every "generic.com" term is generic according to the PTO, absent exceptional circumstances.4

The PTO's own past practice appears to reflect no such comprehensive rule. See, e.g. , Trademark Registration No. 3,601,346 ("ART.COM" on principal register for, inter alia , "[o]nline retail store services" offering "art prints, original art, [and] art reproductions"); Trademark Registration No. 2,580,467 ("DATING.COM" on supplemental register for "dating services"). Existing registrations inconsistent with the rule the PTO now advances would be at risk of cancellation if the PTO's current view were to prevail. See § 1064(3). We decline to adopt a rule essentially excluding registration of "generic.com" marks. As explained below, we discern no support for the PTO's current view in trademark law or policy.

A

The PTO urges that the exclusionary rule it advocates follows from a common-law principle, applied in Goodyear's India Rubber Glove Mfg. Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co. , 128 U.S. 598, 9 S.Ct. 166, 32 L.Ed. 535 (1888), that a generic corporate designation added to a generic term does not confer trademark eligibility. In Goodyear , a decision predating the Lanham Act, this Court held that "Goodyear Rubber Company" was not "capable of exclusive appropriation." Id. , at 602, 9 S.Ct. 166. Standing alone, the term "Goodyear Rubber" could not serve as a trademark because it referred, in those days, to "well-known classes of goods produced by the process known as Goodyear's invention." Ibid. "[A]ddition of the word 'Company' " supplied no protectable meaning, the Court concluded, because adding "Company" "only indicates that parties have formed an association or partnership to deal in such goods." Ibid. Permitting exclusive rights in "Goodyear Rubber Company" (or "Wine Company, Cotton Company, or Grain Company"), the Court explained, would tread on the right of all persons "to deal in such articles, and to publish the fact to the world." Id. , at 602-603, 9 S.Ct. 166.

"Generic.com," the PTO maintains, is like "Generic Company" and is therefore ineligible for trademark protection, let alone federal registration. According to the PTO, adding ".com" to a generic term-like *2306adding "Company"-"conveys no additional meaning that would distinguish [one provider's] services from those of other providers." Brief for Petitioners 44. The dissent endorses that proposition: "Generic.com" conveys that the generic good or service is offered online "and nothing more." Post , at 2309.

That premise is faulty. A "generic.com" term might also convey to consumers a source-identifying characteristic: an association with a particular website. As the PTO and the dissent elsewhere acknowledge, only one entity can occupy a particular Internet domain name at a time, so "[a] consumer who is familiar with that aspect of the domain-name system can infer that BOOKING.COM refers to some specific entity." Brief for Petitioners 40. See also Tr. of Oral Arg. 5 ("Because domain names are one of a kind, a significant portion of the public will always understand a generic '.com' term to refer to a specific business ...."); post , at 2312 - 2313 (the "exclusivity" of "generic.com" terms sets them apart from terms like "Wine, Inc." and "The Wine Company"). Thus, consumers could understand a given "generic.com" term to describe the corresponding website or to identify the website's proprietor. We therefore resist the PTO's position that "generic.com" terms are capable of signifying only an entire class of online goods or services and, hence, are categorically incapable of identifying a source.5

The PTO's reliance on Goodyear is flawed in another respect. The PTO understands Goodyear to hold that "Generic Company" terms "are ineligible for trademark protection as a matter of law "-regardless of how "consumers would understand" the term. Brief for Petitioners 38. But, as noted, whether a term is generic depends on its meaning to consumers. Supra , at 2304. That bedrock principle of the Lanham Act is incompatible with an unyielding legal rule that entirely disregards consumer perception. Instead, Goodyear reflects a more modest principle harmonious with Congress' subsequent enactment: A compound of generic elements is generic if the combination yields no additional meaning to consumers capable of distinguishing the goods or services.

The PTO also invokes the oft-repeated principle that "no matter how much money and effort the user of a generic term has poured into promoting the sale of its merchandise ..., it cannot deprive competing manufacturers of the product of the right to call an article by its name." Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc. , 537 F.2d 4, 9 (CA2 1976). That principle presupposes that a generic term is at issue.

*2307But the PTO's only legal basis for deeming "generic.com" terms generic is its mistaken reliance on Goodyear .

While we reject the rule proffered by the PTO that "generic.com" terms are generic names, we do not embrace a rule automatically classifying such terms as nongeneric. Whether any given "generic.com" term is generic, we hold, depends on whether consumers in fact perceive that term as the name of a class or, instead, as a term capable of distinguishing among members of the class.6

B

The PTO, echoed by the dissent, post , at 2314 - 2315, objects that protecting "generic.com" terms as trademarks would disserve trademark law's animating policies. We disagree.

The PTO's principal concern is that trademark protection for a term like "Booking.com" would hinder competitors. But the PTO does not assert that others seeking to offer online hotel-reservation services need to call their services "Booking.com." Rather, the PTO fears that trademark protection for "Booking.com" could exclude or inhibit competitors from using the term "booking" or adopting domain names like "ebooking.com" or "hotel-booking.com." Brief for Petitioners 27-28. The PTO's objection, therefore, is not to exclusive use of "Booking.com" as a mark, but to undue control over similar language, i.e. , "booking," that others should remain free to use.

That concern attends any descriptive mark. Responsive to it, trademark law hems in the scope of such marks short of denying trademark protection altogether. Notably, a competitor's use does not infringe a mark unless it is likely to confuse consumers. See §§ 1114(1), 1125(a)(1)(A) ; 4 McCarthy § 23:1.50 (collecting state law). In assessing the likelihood of confusion, courts consider the mark's distinctiveness: "The weaker a mark, the fewer are the junior uses that will trigger a likelihood of consumer confusion." 2 id. , § 11:76. When a mark incorporates generic or highly descriptive components, consumers are less likely to think that other uses of the common element emanate from the mark's owner. Ibid. Similarly, "[i]n a 'crowded' field of look-alike marks" (e.g. , hotel names including the word "grand"), consumers "may have learned to carefully pick out" one mark from another. Id. , § 11:85. And even where some consumer confusion exists, the doctrine known as classic fair use, see id. , § 11:45, protects from liability anyone who *2308uses a descriptive term, "fairly and in good faith" and "otherwise than as a mark," merely to describe her own goods. 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(4) ; see KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc. , 543 U.S. 111, 122-123, 125 S.Ct. 542, 160 L.Ed.2d 440 (2004).

These doctrines guard against the anticompetitive effects the PTO identifies, ensuring that registration of "Booking.com" would not yield its holder a monopoly on the term "booking." Booking.com concedes that "Booking.com" would be a "weak" mark. Tr. of Oral Arg. 66. See also id. , at 42-43, 55. The mark is descriptive, Booking.com recognizes, making it "harder ... to show a likelihood of confusion." Id. , at 43. Furthermore, because its mark is one of many "similarly worded marks," Booking.com accepts that close variations are unlikely to infringe. Id. , at 66. And Booking.com acknowledges that federal registration of "Booking.com" would not prevent competitors from using the word "booking" to describe their own services. Id. , at 55.

The PTO also doubts that owners of "generic.com" brands need trademark protection in addition to existing competitive advantages. Booking.com, the PTO argues, has already seized a domain name that no other website can use and is easy for consumers to find. Consumers might enter "the word 'booking' in a search engine," the PTO observes, or "proceed directly to 'booking.com' in the expectation that [online hotel-booking] services will be offered at that address." Brief for Petitioners 32. Those competitive advantages, however, do not inevitably disqualify a mark from federal registration. All descriptive marks are intuitively linked to the product or service and thus might be easy for consumers to find using a search engine or telephone directory. The Lanham Act permits registration nonetheless. See § 1052(e), (f). And the PTO fails to explain how the exclusive connection between a domain name and its owner makes the domain name a generic term all should be free to use. That connection makes trademark protection more appropriate, not less. See supra , at 2305 - 2306.

Finally, even if "Booking.com" is generic, the PTO urges, unfair-competition law could prevent others from passing off their services as Booking.com's. Cf. Genesee Brewing Co. v. Stroh Brewing Co. , 124 F.3d 137, 149 (CA2 1997) ; Blinded Veterans Assn. v. Blinded Am. Veterans Foundation , 872 F.2d 1035, 1042-1048 (CADC 1989). But federal trademark registration would offer Booking.com greater protection. See, e.g. , Genesee Brewing , 124 F.3d at 151 (unfair-competition law would oblige competitor at most to "make more of an effort" to reduce confusion, not to cease marketing its product using the disputed term); Matal , 582 U. S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1753 (federal registration confers valuable benefits); Brief for Respondent 26 (expressing intention to seek protections available to trademark owners under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d) ); Brief for Coalition of .Com Brand Owners as Amici Curiae 14-19 (trademark rights allow mark owners to stop domain-name abuse through private dispute resolution without resorting to litigation). We have no cause to deny Booking.com the same benefits Congress accorded other marks qualifying as nongeneric.

* * *

The PTO challenges the judgment below on a sole ground: It urges that, as a rule, combining a generic term with ".com" yields a generic composite. For the above-stated reasons, we decline a rule of that order, one that would largely disallow registration of "generic.com" terms and open the door to cancellation of scores of currently registered marks. Accordingly, the *2309judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding eligibility for trademark registration is

Affirmed.

Justice SOTOMAYOR, concurring.

The question before the Court here is simple: whether there is a nearly per se rule against trademark protection for a "generic.com" term. See ante , at 2304 - 2305; post , at 2314 (BREYER, J., dissenting). I agree with the Court that there is no such rule, a holding that accords with how the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has treated such terms in the past. See ante , at 2305 (noting that the "PTO's own past practice appears to reflect no such comprehensive rule"). I add two observations.

First, the dissent wisely observes that consumer-survey evidence "may be an unreliable indicator of genericness." Post , at 2314. Flaws in a specific survey design, or weaknesses inherent in consumer surveys generally, may limit the probative value of surveys in determining whether a particular mark is descriptive or generic in this context. But I do not read the Court's opinion to suggest that surveys are the be-all and end-all. As the Court notes, sources such as "dictionaries, usage by consumers and competitors, and any other source of evidence bearing on how consumers perceive a term's meaning" may also inform whether a mark is generic or descriptive. Ante , at 2307, n. 6.

Second, the PTO may well have properly concluded, based on such dictionary and usage evidence, that Booking.com is in fact generic for the class of services at issue here, and the District Court may have erred in concluding to the contrary. But that question is not before the Court. With these understandings, I concur in the Court's opinion.

Justice BREYER, dissenting.

What is Booking.com? To answer this question, one need only consult the term itself. Respondent provides an online booking service. The company's name informs the consumer of the basic nature of its business and nothing more. Therein lies the root of my disagreement with the majority.

Trademark law does not protect generic terms, meaning terms that do no more than name the product or service itself. This principle preserves the linguistic commons by preventing one producer from appropriating to its own exclusive use a term needed by others to describe their goods or services. Today, the Court holds that the addition of ".com" to an otherwise generic term, such as "booking," can yield a protectable trademark. Because I believe this result is inconsistent with trademark principles and sound trademark policy, I respectfully dissent.

I

A

Trademark law protects those " 'distinctive marks-words, names, symbols, and the like' " that " 'distinguish a particular artisan's goods from those of others.' " Matal v. Tam , 582 U. S. ----, ----, 137 S.Ct. 1744, 1751, 198 L.Ed.2d 366 (2017) (slip op., at 2) (quoting B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc. , 575 U.S. 138, 142, 135 S.Ct. 1293, 191 L.Ed.2d 222 (2015) ). To determine whether a given term is sufficiently distinctive to serve as a trademark, courts generally place it in one of five categories. The first four kinds of terms are eligible for federal trademark registration. The fifth is not.

I list the first three only to give context and allow comparisons. They are: (1) " 'fanciful' " terms, such as "Kodak" (film);

*2310(2) " 'arbitrary' " terms, such as "Camel" (cigarettes); and (3) " 'suggestive' " terms, such as "Tide" (laundry detergent). Ante, at 2302 - 2303. These kinds of terms are " 'inherently distinctive.' " Ibid. The public can readily understand that they identify and distinguish the goods or services of one firm from those of all others. See Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. , 505 U.S. 763, 768, 112 S.Ct. 2753, 120 L.Ed.2d 615 (1992). By preventing others from copying a distinctive mark, trademark law "protect[s] the ability of consumers to distinguish among competing producers" and "secure[s] to the owner of the mark the goodwill of his business." Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc. , 469 U.S. 189, 198, 105 S.Ct. 658, 83 L.Ed.2d 582 (1985). Ultimately, the purpose of trademark law is to "foster competition" and "suppor[t] the free flow of commerce." Matal , 582 U. S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1751-1752 (internal quotation marks omitted).

This case concerns two further categories. There are "descriptive" terms, such as "Best Buy" (electronics) or "First National Bank" (banking services), that "immediately conve[y] information concerning a feature, quality, or characteristic" of the producer's goods or services. In re North Carolina Lottery , 866 F.3d 1363, 1367 (CA Fed. 2017). A descriptive term can be registered as a trademark only if it acquires "secondary meaning"-i.e., the public has come to associate it with a particular firm or its product. Two Pesos , 505 U.S. at 769, 112 S.Ct. 2753.

There are also "generic" terms, such as "wine" or "haircuts." They do nothing more than inform the consumer of the kind of product that the firm sells. We have called generic terms "descriptive of a class of goods." Goodyear's India Rubber Glove Mfg. Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co. , 128 U.S. 598, 602, 9 S.Ct. 166, 32 L.Ed. 535 (1888). And we have said that they simply convey the "genus of which the particular product is a species." Park 'N Fly , 469 U.S. at 196, 105 S.Ct. 658. A generic term is not eligible for use as a trademark. That principle applies even if a particular generic term "ha[s] become identified with a first user" in the minds of the consuming public. CES Publishing Corp. v. St. Regis Publications, Inc. , 531 F.2d 11, 13 (CA2 1975) (Friendly, J.). The reason is simple. To hold otherwise "would grant the owner of the mark a monopoly, since a competitor could not describe his goods as what they are." Ibid.

Courts have recognized that it is not always easy to distinguish generic from descriptive terms. See, e.g., Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc. , 537 F.2d 4, 9 (CA2 1976) (Friendly, J.). It is particularly difficult to do so when a firm wishes to string together two or more generic terms to create a compound term. Despite the generic nature of its component parts, the term as a whole is not necessarily generic. In such cases, courts must determine whether the combination of generic terms conveys some distinctive, source-identifying meaning that each term, individually, lacks. See 2 J. McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 12:39 (5th ed. June 2020 update) (McCarthy). If the meaning of the whole is no greater than the sum of its parts, then the compound is itself generic. See Princeton Vanguard, LLC v. Frito-Lay North Am., Inc. , 786 F.3d 960, 966-967 (CA Fed. 2015) ; In re Gould Paper Corp. , 834 F.2d 1017, 1018 (CA Fed. 1987) (registration is properly denied if "the separate words joined to form a compound have a meaning identical to the meaning common usage would ascribe to those words as a compound"); see also 2 McCarthy § 12:39 (collecting examples of compound terms held to be generic).

In Goodyear, 128 U.S. 598, 9 S.Ct. 166, 32 L.Ed. 535, we held that appending the *2311word " 'Company' " to the generic name for a class of goods does not yield a protectable compound term. Id., at 602-603, 9 S.Ct. 166. The addition of a corporate designation, we explained, "only indicates that parties have formed an association or partnership to deal in such goods." Id., at 602, 9 S.Ct. 166. For instance, "parties united to produce or sell wine, or to raise cotton or grain," may well "style themselves Wine Company, Cotton Company, or Grain Company." Ibid. But they would not thereby gain the right to exclude others from the use of those terms "for the obvious reason that all persons have a right to deal in such articles, and to publish the fact to the world." Id., at 603, 9 S.Ct. 166. "[I]ncorporation of a company in the name of an article of commerce, without other specification," we concluded, does not "create any exclusive right to the use of the name." Ibid.

I cannot agree with respondent that the 1946 Lanham Act "repudiate[d] Goodyear and its ilk." Brief for Respondent 39. It is true that the Lanham Act altered the common law in certain important respects. Most significantly, it extended trademark protection to descriptive marks that have acquired secondary meaning. See Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co. , 514 U.S. 159, 171, 115 S.Ct. 1300, 131 L.Ed.2d 248 (1995). But it did not disturb the basic principle that generic terms are ineligible for trademark protection, and nothing in the Act suggests that Congress intended to overturn Goodyear . We normally assume that Congress did not overturn a common-law principle absent some indication to the contrary. See Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Solimino , 501 U.S. 104, 108, 111 S.Ct. 2166, 115 L.Ed.2d 96 (1991). I can find no such indication here. Perhaps that is why the lower courts, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office's (PTO) Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP), and leading treatises all recognize Goodyear 's continued validity. See, e.g., In re Detroit Athletic Co. , 903 F.3d 1297, 1304 (CA Fed. 2018) ; In re Katch, LLC , 2019 WL 2560528, *10 (TTAB 2019); TMEP §§ 1209.03(d) (Oct. 2018); 2 McCarthy § 12:39 ; 4 L. Altman & M. Pollack, Callmann on Unfair Competition, Trademarks and Monopolies § 18:11 (4th ed., June 2020 update).

More fundamentally, the Goodyear principle is sound as a matter of law and logic. Goodyear recognized that designations such as "Company," "Corp.," and "Inc." merely indicate corporate form and therefore do nothing to distinguish one firm's goods or services from all others'. 128 U.S. at 602, 9 S.Ct. 166. It follows that the addition of such a corporate designation does not "magically transform a generic name for a product or service into a trademark, thereby giving a right to exclude others." 2 McCarthy § 12:39. In other words, where a compound term consists simply of a generic term plus a corporate designation, the whole is necessarily no greater than the sum of its parts.

B

This case requires us to apply these principles in the novel context of internet domain names. Respondent seeks to register a term, "Booking.com," that consists of a generic term, "booking" (known as the second-level domain) plus ".com" (known as the top-level domain). The question at issue here is whether a term that takes the form "generic.com" is generic in the ordinary course. In my view, appending ".com" to a generic term ordinarily yields no meaning beyond that of its constituent parts. Because the term "Booking.com" is just such an ordinary "generic.com" term, in my view, it is not eligible for trademark registration.

*2312Like the corporate designations at issue in Goodyear , a top-level domain such as ".com" has no capacity to identify and distinguish the source of goods or services. It is merely a necessary component of any web address. See 1 McCarthy § 7:17.50. When combined with the generic name of a class of goods or services, ".com" conveys only that the owner operates a website related to such items. Just as "Wine Company" expresses the generic concept of a company that deals in wine, "wine.com" connotes only a website that does the same. The same is true of "Booking.com." The combination of "booking" and ".com" does not serve to "identify a particular characteristic or quality of some thing; it connotes the basic nature of that thing "-the hallmark of a generic term. Blinded Veterans Assn. v. Blinded Am. Veterans Foundation , 872 F.2d 1035, 1039 (CADC 1989) (Ginsburg, J. for the court) (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted).

When a website uses an inherently distinctive second-level domain, it is obvious that adding ".com" merely denotes a website associated with that term. Any reasonably well-informed consumer would understand that "post-it.com" is the website associated with Post-its. See Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co. v. Taylor , 21 F.Supp.2d 1003, 1005 (Minn. 1998). Likewise, "plannedparenthood.com" is obviously just the website of Planned Parenthood. See Planned Parenthood Federation of Am., Inc. v. Bucci , 1997 WL 133313, *8 (SDNY, Mar. 24, 1997). Recognizing this feature of domain names, courts generally ignore the top-level domain when analyzing likelihood of confusion. See Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp. , 174 F.3d 1036, 1055 (CA9 1999).

Generic second-level domains are no different. The meaning conveyed by "Booking.com" is no more and no less than a website associated with its generic second-level domain, "booking." This will ordinarily be true of any generic term plus ".com" combination. The term as a whole is just as generic as its constituent parts. See 1 McCarthy § 7:17.50 ; 2 id ., § 12:39.50.

There may be exceptions to this rule in rare cases where the top-level domain interacts with the generic second-level domain in such a way as to produce meaning distinct from that of the terms taken individually. See ante, at 2305, n. 4. Likewise, the principles discussed above may apply differently to the newly expanded universe of top-level domains, such as ".guru," ".club," or ".vip," which may "conve[y] information concerning a feature, quality, or characteristic" of the website at issue. In re North Carolina Lottery , 866 F.3d at 1367 ; see also Brief for International Trademark Association as Amicus Curiae 10-11; TMEP § 1209.03(m). These scenarios are not presented here, as "Booking.com" conveys only a website associated with booking.

C

The majority believes that Goodyear is inapposite because of the nature of the domain name system. Because only one entity can hold the contractual rights to a particular domain name at a time, it contends, consumers may infer that a "generic.com" domain name refers to some specific entity. Ante , at 2305 - 2306.

That fact does not distinguish Goodyear . A generic term may suggest that it is associated with a specific entity. That does not render it nongeneric. For example, "Wine, Inc." implies the existence of a specific legal entity incorporated under the laws of some State. Likewise, consumers may perceive "The Wine Company" to refer to some specific company rather than a genus of companies. But the addition of the definite article "the" obviously does not *2313transform the generic nature of that term. See In re The Computer Store, Inc. , 211 U.S.P.Q. 72, 74-75 (TTAB 1981). True, these terms do not carry the exclusivity of a domain name. But that functional exclusivity does not negate the principle animating Goodyear : Terms that merely convey the nature of the producer's business should remain free for all to use. See 128 U.S. at 603, 9 S.Ct. 166.

This case illustrates the difficulties inherent in the majority's fact-specific approach. The lower courts determined (as the majority highlights), that consumers do not use the term "Booking.com" to refer to the class of hotel reservation websites in ordinary speech. 915 F. 3d 171, 181-183 (CA4 2019) ; ante, at 2304 - 2305. True, few would call Travelocity a "Booking.com." Ibid. But literal use is not dispositive. See 915 F. 3d, at 182; H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. International Assn. of Fire Chiefs, Inc. , 782 F.2d 987, 989-990 (CA Fed. 1986). Consumers do not use the term "Wine, Incs." to refer to purveyors of wine. Still, the term "Wine, Inc." is generic because it signifies only a company incorporated for that purpose. See Goodyear , 128 U.S. at 602-603, 9 S.Ct. 166. Similarly, "Booking, Inc." may not be trademarked because it signifies only a booking company. The result should be no different for "Booking.com," which signifies only a booking website.

More than that, many of the facts that the Court supposes may distinguish some "generic.com" marks as descriptive and some as generic are unlikely to vary from case to case. There will never be evidence that consumers literally refer to the relevant class of online merchants as "generic.coms." Nor are "generic.com" terms likely to appear in dictionaries. And the key fact that, in the majority's view, distinguishes this case from Goodyear -that only one entity can own the rights to a particular domain name at a time-is present in every "generic.com" case. See ante , at 2305 - 2306.

What, then, stands in the way of automatic trademark eligibility for every "generic.com" domain? Much of the time, that determination will turn primarily on survey evidence, just as it did in this case. See 915 F. 3d, at 183-184.

However, survey evidence has limited probative value in this context. Consumer surveys often test whether consumers associate a term with a single source. See 2 McCarthy § 12:14 - 12:16 (describing types of consumer surveys). But it is possible for a generic term to achieve such an association-either because that producer has enjoyed a period of exclusivity in the marketplace, e.g ., Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. , 305 U.S. 111, 118-119, 59 S.Ct. 109, 83 L.Ed. 73 (1938), or because it has invested money and effort in securing the public's identification, e.g ., Abercrombie , 537 F.2d at 9. Evidence of such an association, no matter how strong, does not negate the generic nature of the term. Ibid . For that reason, some courts and the TTAB have concluded that survey evidence is generally of little value in separating generic from descriptive terms. See Schwan's IP, LLC v. Kraft Pizza Co. , 460 F.3d 971, 975-976 (CA8 2006) ; Hunt Masters, Inc. v. Landry's Seafood Restaurant, Inc. , 240 F.3d 251, 254-255 (CA4 2001) ; A. J. Canfield Co. v. Honickman , 808 F.2d 291, 301-303 (CA3 1986) ; Miller Brewing Co. v. Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co. , 605 F.2d 990, 995 (CA7 1979) ; In re Hikari Sales USA, Inc. , 2019 WL 1453259, *13 (TTAB 2019). Although this is the minority viewpoint, see 2 McCarthy § 12:17.25, I nonetheless find it to be the more persuasive one.

Consider the survey evidence that respondent introduced below. Respondent's survey showed that 74.8% of participants thought that "Booking.com" is a brand *2314name, whereas 23.8% believed it was a generic name. App. 66. At the same time, 33% believed that "Washingmachine.com"-which does not correspond to any company-is a brand, and 60.8% thought it was generic. Ibid.

What could possibly account for that difference? "Booking.com" is not inherently more descriptive than "Washingmachine.com" or any other "generic.com." The survey participants who identified "Booking.com" as a brand likely did so because they had heard of it, through advertising or otherwise. If someone were to start a company called "Washingmachine.com," it could likely secure a similar level of consumer identification by investing heavily in advertising. Would that somehow transform the nature of the term itself? Surely not. This hypothetical shows that respondent's survey tested consumers' association of "Booking.com" with a particular company, not anything about the term itself. But such association does not establish that a term is nongeneric. See Kellogg , 305 U.S. at 118-119, 59 S.Ct. 109 ; Abercrombie , 537 F.2d at 9.

Under the majority's approach, a "generic.com" mark's eligibility for trademark protection turns primarily on survey data, which, as I have explained, may be an unreliable indicator of genericness. As the leading treatise writer in this field has observed, this approach "[d]iscard[s] the predictable and clear line rule of the [PTO] and the Federal Circuit" in favor of "a nebulous and unpredictable zone of generic name and top level domain combinations that somehow become protectable marks when accompanied by favorable survey results." 1 McCarthy § 7:17.50. I would heed this criticism. In my view, a term that takes the form "generic.com" is not eligible for federal trademark registration, at least not ordinarily. There being no special circumstance here, I believe that "Booking.com" is a generic term not eligible for federal registration as a trademark.

II

In addition to the doctrinal concerns discussed above, granting trademark protection to "generic.com" marks threatens serious anticompetitive consequences in the online marketplace.

The owners of short, generic domain names enjoy all the advantages of doing business under a generic name. These advantages exist irrespective of the trademark laws. Generic names are easy to remember. Because they immediately convey the nature of the business, the owner needs to expend less effort and expense educating consumers. See Meystedt, What Is My URL Worth? Placing a Value on Premium Domain Names, 19 Valuation Strategies 10, 12 (2015) (Meystedt) (noting "ability to advertise a single URL and convey exactly what business a company operates"); cf. Folsom & Teply, Trademarked Generic Words, 89 Yale L. J. 1323, 1337-1338 (1980) (Folsom & Teply) (noting " 'free advertising' effect"). And a generic business name may create the impression that it is the most authoritative and trustworthy source of the particular good or service. See Meystedt 12 (noting that generic domain names inspire "[i]nstant trust and credibility" and "[a]uthority status in an industry"); cf. Folsom & Teply 1337, n. 79 (noting that consumers may believe that "no other product is the 'real thing' "). These advantages make it harder for distinctively named businesses to compete.

Owners of generic domain names enjoy additional competitive advantages unique to the internet-again, regardless of trademark protection. Most importantly, domain name ownership confers automatic exclusivity. Multiple brick-and-mortar companies could style themselves "The Wine Company," but there can be only one *2315"wine.com." And unlike the trademark system, that exclusivity is world-wide.

Generic domains are also easier for consumers to find. A consumer who wants to buy wine online may perform a keyword search and be directed to "wine.com." Or he may simply type "wine.com" into his browser's address bar, expecting to find a website selling wine. See Meystedt 12 (noting "ability to rank higher on search engines" and "ability to use existing type-in traffic to generate additional sales"); see also 915 F. 3d, at 189 (Wynn, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). The owner of a generic domain name enjoys these benefits not because of the quality of her products or the goodwill of her business, but because she was fortunate (or savvy) enough to be the first to appropriate a particularly valuable piece of online real estate.

Granting trademark protection to "generic.com" marks confers additional competitive benefits on their owners by allowing them to exclude others from using similar domain names. Federal registration would allow respondent to threaten trademark lawsuits against competitors using domains such as "Bookings.com," "eBooking.com," "Booker.com," or "Bookit.com." Respondent says that it would not do so. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 55-56. But other firms may prove less restrained.

Indeed, why would a firm want to register its domain name as a trademark unless it wished to extend its area of exclusivity beyond the domain name itself? The domain name system, after all, already ensures that competitors cannot appropriate a business's actual domain name. And unfair-competition law will often separately protect businesses from passing off and false advertising. See Genesee Brewing Co. v. Stroh Brewing Co. , 124 F.3d 137, 149 (CA2 1997) ; 2 McCarthy § 12:2.

Under the majority's reasoning, many businesses could obtain a trademark by adding ".com" to the generic name of their product (e.g. , pizza.com, flowers.com, and so forth). As the internet grows larger, as more and more firms use it to sell their products, the risk of anticompetitive consequences grows. Those consequences can nudge the economy in an anticompetitive direction. At the extreme, that direction points towards one firm per product, the opposite of the competitive multifirm marketplace that our basic economic laws seek to achieve.

Not to worry, the Court responds, infringement doctrines such as likelihood of confusion and fair use will restrict the scope of protection afforded to "generic.com" marks. Ante, at 2307 - 2308. This response will be cold comfort to competitors of "generic.com" brands. Owners of such marks may seek to extend the boundaries of their marks through litigation, and may, at times succeed. See, e.g. , Advertise.com v. AOL, LLC , 2010 WL 11507594 (CD Cal.) (owner of "Advertising.com" obtained preliminary injunction against competitor's use of "Advertise.com"), vacated in part, 616 F.3d 974 (CA9 2010). Even if ultimately unsuccessful, the threat of costly litigation will no doubt chill others from using variants on the registered mark and privilege established firms over new entrants to the market. See Brief for Electronic Frontier Foundation as Amicus Curiae 19-20.

* * *

In sum, the term "Booking.com" refers to an internet booking service, which is the generic product that respondent and its competitors sell. No more and no less. The same is true of "generic.com" terms more generally. By making such terms eligible for trademark protection, I fear that today's decision will lead to a proliferation of "generic.com" marks, granting their owners *2316a monopoly over a zone of useful, easy-to-remember domains. This result would tend to inhibit, rather than to promote, free competition in online commerce. I respectfully dissent.