Blog

Having found that there was no evidence in the record that Applicant's MUSEUM OF NAMES was "a museum of names (or, more generally, a museum)"; the TTAB reversed the refusal.  

the applied-for BRECKIN ANKLES mark would likely be understood as a slang variant of the phrase “Breaking Ankles” when used in connection with clothing items “to be used in relation to basketball” and “basketball accessories”--namely to cause a player to stumble--whereas the cited BREKENS B mark would likely be understood to be a name, particularly given the presence of the initial “B” in close proximity to BREKENS in the mark.

While evidence of substantial advertising expenditures, social media activity, and billboards may demonstrate commercial promotion of the claimed mark,  the case here lacked objective evidence such as consumer surveys or third-party declarations showing that the relevant consumers perceive WIN BIG LAW as identifying that party as the source of the services, rather than as a promotional slogan touting successful results.

In KetoNatural Pet Foods, Inc. v. Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc., No. 24-3185, __ F.4th __ (10th Cir. Jul. 14, 2026), the Tenth Circuit found that statements by Hill’s that grain-free pet food (like KetoNatural’s) were linked to a higher risk of canine heart disease were plausibly false advertising, but not the statements from veterinarians and non-profits allegedly affiliated with Hill’s.

the heavy weight of the sixth factor is the dominant consideration in this case and “affect[s] the overall commercial impression” of the parties' marks under the first factor. Apex Bank, 156 F.4th at 1236. That is, although the parties' marks are similar under the first factor, consumers are likely to rely on the minor differences between the parties' marks (i.e. the addition of the generic word BANK and mountain peak design in Applicant's marks) to distinguish them in the crowded field of ASPIRE marks.

Despite any rhyming qualities FLASHIN’ ASSASSIN might have, it does not impart a separate and distinct overall commercial impression. There is nothing of record that supports the conclusion that the rhyming quality imparts a new or different meaning to ASSASSIN or that FLASHIN’ does not retain its descriptive significance in relation to Respondent’s goods.

FOODANALYZER bears a close descriptive relationship to the identified services and that “food” and “analyzer” individually have descriptive significance for those services. But descriptiveness, even high descriptiveness, is not tantamount to genericness.

While evidence of residual goodwill can serve to negate a charge of abandonment based on a mark having become the generic name for the goods, . . . Registrant’s nonuse (and the lack of evidence that Registrant’s alleged predecessor-in-interest, Italproperties, ever used the mark). Alleged residual goodwill does not defeat nonuse.

TTAB held that the specimen of use for the EVERWISE CREDIT UNION mark failed to demonstrate bona fide use in commerce because the tagline “Why TCU? Because we are an Everwise Credit Union™” would not be perceived as a source-indicator for registered financial services, but instead “merely use made in an attempt to reserve a right in the mark until Registrant was actually using the mark in commerce in connection with its financial services.” 

The District of Oregon found that that Columbia University sold allegedly infringing merchandise to Oregon residents and that Columbia Sportswear's claims of trademark infringement against Columbia University “clearly arise out of and relate to [the university's] conduct of selling [its infringing merchandise] to [Oregon] residents.” The alleged sales of infringing merchandise by the defendant “into Oregon occur[red] as part of Defendant's regular course of business.” Also, “even if some of the acts giving rise to Plaintiffs' claims occurred outside this forum, at least [some] acts occurred in this forum.” And the Court found that Columbia University failed to establish that the exercise of jurisdiction over them in Oregon would not be reasonable. 

while the cited registered mark, GUN FU, was inherently distinctive, it “has some conceptual weakness when used in connection with media or subject matter that involves guns used in martial art combat.” But this was not enough to overcome the Section 2(d) refusal to register the applied-for SPINE – THIS IS GUN FU mark. 

Although the applied-for FAMOUS FRIENDS mark qualified for protection as a secondary source indicator, the TTAB also affirmed a Section 2(d) refusal that confusion is likely with the registered mark FAMOUS FRIEND for “entertainment services by a musical artist and producer, namely, musical composition for others and production of musical sound recordings.” 

“[A] mismatch between the identified good and the goods and/or services reflected by the specimens” is a potentially fatal problem. In re Thee Earth & Composting Solutions, LLC, Ser. No. 98020099 (TTAB Apr. 22, 2026).

Kramer argued that this was not false advertising because the statement was prefaced with the qualifier “allegedly.” But “Kramer offer[ed] no authority supporting his position that his ‘allegedly' qualifying statement, without more, is sufficient to warrant dismissal at the pleading stage.”

We think the Court did a very thorough analysis and applied the law accurately to the facts in the case at hand. Our client can now focus on doing what she is best at — running drug treatment centers.

district court's explanation that “unnecessarily overbroad infringement claims” do not serve the purpose of the Copyright Act and Designworks’s “litigation strategy gives rise to circumstances suggesting a need for deterrence,” did not ignore the Copyright Act’s purpose

TTAB concluded that consumers who know that a company provides targeted delivery based on a date range (i.e., the relevant genus for our analysis), will understand the applied-for TARGETED DELIVERY mark to refer to that genus

ordering a customized storybook for oneself, which Applicant merely prints and ships to the consumer (as denoted in its ordering details and discussed above), does not constitute “publishing” or “publication” services.

In considering a Section 2(d) refusal of MICHAEL THE BULL (and other similar marks) for legal services in view of a “bull pen” of registered marks including CALL IN THE BULL and THE BULL ATTORNEYS! for legal services, the TTAB concluded that the differences in the marks outweighed the identity of the services.

while the marks were quite similar, the goods are “manifestly dissimilar” and “so different in kind that purchasers are unlikely to believe they emanate from a single source.” Concluding that “[t]he difference in the goods … is dispositive on the issue of likelihood of confusion,”

We agree with Applicant that its mark conveys a different meaning when the compound word BARBEE is considered as a whole, i.e., in combination with the logo consisting of a bee inside a martini glass, i.e., that of a worker bee at a bar. The record shows that BARBIE, on the other hand, is a nickname for the doll, whose full name is Barbara Millicent Roberts, and, as a result, it conveys the impression of a doll named BARBIE. As a result of their different meanings when applied to the goods of Applicant and Opposer, the two marks create different commercial impressions, notwithstanding the fact that they are identical in sound.

Plaintiff had sought $30 million in fees, but “oversized staffing of trial teams leads inevitably to substantial inefficiencies that in turn generate fees far beyond what is reasonably necessary.” Accordingly, the Court reduced the requested fees “by 30 percent for an unreasonable number of hours billed and by a further 10 percent for failing to provide sufficient descriptive information to the Court, for a total of a 40 percent reduction.”

while MERCI is not conceptually weak under the sixth DuPont factor, the common use of “thank you” in connection with chocolate supports that the meaning of the mark MERCI is conceptually weak under the thirteenth DuPont factor.

The TTAB found that the proposed marks FREE PHOTOS and FREEPHOTOS would be understood by the relevant public primarily to refer to a key aspect of printing services such that the proposed marks are generic. 

The Seventh Circuit found that Little Caesars' consumer survey data, dictionary definitions, and third-party trademark registrations showing generic usage of "pizza puff" were sufficient to overcome the presumption of trademark validity for PIZZA PUFF which Iltaco failed to rebut for purposes of showing a likelihood of success on the merits at trial for a preliminary injunction.