A nickname for a celebrity can be as good as his/her real name, regardless of whether the celebrity uses the trademark themselves

Celebrity Name

Nieves & Nieves LLC sought to register the word mark ROYAL KATE for a number of fashion products, including cosmetics, jewelry, handbags, bedding, and clothing.  The application included a statement that the mark “does not identify a particular living individual.” In the precedential opinion in In re Nieves & Nieves LLC, the Trademark Trial and …

Can the marks EVADE OFFSHORE ARMOR and EVADE OUTDOOR ARMOR cause a likelihood of confusion with the mark ARMOUR?

Can the marks EVADE OFFSHORE ARMOR and EVADE OUTDOOR ARMOR cause a likelihood of confusion with the mark ARMOUR?

These are two of the questions the TTAB sought to answer in the proceeding of Under Armour, Inc. v. Evade, LLC.  In this proceeding, Under Armour sought to cancel Evade’s trademark registration to its word mark EVADE OFFSHORE ARMOR and oppose Evade’s trademark application for the word mark EVADE OUTDOOR ARMOR, with all accusations being …

FAME: Here today, not tomorrow.

Opposer, Fruit of the Loom, Inc., owns numerous trademark registrations for its FRUIT OF THE LOOM trademark for clothing, and specifically for underwear.   Applicants filed a trademark application for BODY FRUIT for several clothing items, including undergarments. Opposer filed a Notice of Opposition and, not surprisingly, convinced the TTAB to sustain the opposition in …

Adding a House Mark to a secondary brand similar to someone else’s mark can either increase OR decrease likelihood of confusion depending upon the circumstances.

Applicant, International Intimates Inc., filed for a trademark application for KISS KISS BY INTERNATIONAL INTIMATES INC. for clothing, including undergarments, lingerie and sleepwear. The application was rejected based on U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3434337 for the mark QISS QISS for clothing, including lingerie and sleepwear.  The TTAB affirmed the refusal. The first argument Applicant lost …

Word mark registrations TRUMP stylized versions; and there really are 3 for 1 specials in trademark law for clothing.

Applicant applied for the following mark incorporating the stylized letters “DF”: for a variety of clothing items.  The application was refused registration because of the existence of United States Trademark Registration No. 2827030 for the word mark DF, also for a variety of clothing items, with some overlap with the refused application.  The TTAB affirmed …

Applicant’s ENDORPHIN HIGH expires when he crashes into existing registration.

Applicant filed for a trademark application for ENDORPHINS for “hats; sweatshirts; t-shirts; tank tops.”  (Seriously,…does anyone wear tank tops anymore?) The application was rejected based on U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3927040 for the mark shown below: for a variety of clothing items including hats and t-shirts.  The TTAB affirmed the refusal. While this is a …

Deceptive marks always start off with two strikes against them.

Applicant applied for the mark BLAZING SILKS for a variety of clothing products.  Applicant also made clear that its products were not made from silk.   FIRST STRIKE:  Had Applicant’s products been made from silk, the USPTO would have deemed the word “silk” to be merely descriptive and would have required Applicant disclaim “silk” apart …