A recent decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) sheds light on how the TTAB assesses likelihood of confusion cases involving design marks. The case in question is Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. v. Isabella Elisabeth Shnittger, Opposition No. 91218738 (August 12, 2019) [not precedential]. Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. ("A & F") claimed that the applicant's mark would create confusion with its moose design marks, which are used for various apparel items and retail clothing stores. A & F initiated an opposition proceeding. The applicant utilized the Moose Design along with the words "Red Dear" for clothing goods, including hats, sweatshirts, T-shirts, jackets, shirts, and socks. The applicant did not file a counterclaim to cancel any of A & F's registrations, so the issue of priority was not at stake.
In any likelihood of confusion analysis, including those involving design images like this case, the two main factors to consider are the similarities between the marks and the similarities between the goods. A & F used a solid form (black) moose for retail clothing stores and certain clothing items, while another moose image was used for different clothing items. Consequently, the goods in the applicant's identification are either identical to or closely related to A & F's registered marks. Therefore, legally, the goods are considered identical, allowing the Board to presume that they travel in the same trade channels and are targeted at the same classes of consumers. Although no evidence of similar trade channels and classes of consumers was presented, it was unnecessary as the Board found the goods legally identical. Since the goods overlap, a lesser degree of similarity between the marks is sufficient to establish a likelihood of confusion.
Next, the Board assessed the marks as a whole, considering their appearance, connotation, and commercial impression. The applicant argued that specific features of the Moose Designs were different, such as variations in antlers, head shapes, and the direction the animals faced. However, this argument is flawed because the test for similarity is based on the average consumer's general recollection of the marks, not on specific details. The average purchaser does not recall minor differences in the marks. For instance, the average consumer is unlikely to remember the exact direction the moose was facing or whether its mouth was open or closed. Instead, the overall impression left by the marks is more likely to be that of a four-legged, large animal with antlers in a silhouette form. Case law supports the notion that with design marks, consumers typically do not remember specific details but rather form a general impression. (See In re Vienna Sausage Mfg. Co., 16 USPQ2d 2044, 2047 (TTAB 1990); also see In re United Service Distributors, Inc., 229 USPQ 237, 239 (TTAB 1986)).
The Board then considered the words in the applicant's mark, acknowledging that when words accompany a design, the words often become the dominant element of the mark. However, in this case, the words "Red Dear" are overshadowed by the moose design. The design's size in relation to the size and placement of the words is taken into account. Here, the words are positioned below the design and are significantly smaller. Additionally, the term "dear" emphasizes the deer image, despite the difference in spelling between "deer" and "dear" (as they are phonetic equivalents). The words "Red Dear" merely highlight the design mark, as some consumers may perceive the animal as a deer. In other words, since the design is the prominent feature of the mark and the applicant's design is similar to A & F's design, the inclusion of two smaller words will not prevent confusion. Ultimately, the Board concluded that although there were some differences between the marks, they were not significant enough to overcome the similarities. As a result, the Board denied registration of the applicant's design mark.
If you need legal advice regarding your trademark rights, assistance with trademark prosecution, or representation in a domain name dispute, contact Wilson Whitaker Rynell. Our team of trademark lawyers has extensive experience in all aspects of trademark and copyright law, including the filing of trademark applications and representing clients in defense or prosecution before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
Getting in touch is easy. Use the form below and request a free consultation today.
Recognized in the legal industry as dedicated board-certified lawyers and Rising Stars.
Your project will be handled by legal experts every time. You will have the most experienced attorneys working for you.
Let's talk about your legal issue
Wilson Legal Group P.C.
d/b/a Wilson Whitaker Rynell
(972) 248-8080 (Dallas) MAIN OFFICE
(713) 830-2207 (Houston) Appointment Only
(512) 691-4100 (Austin) Appointment Only
For more information on how we can assist in your intellectual property, commercial litigation, divorce, or other personal needs, let us know how we can help you:
WILSON WHITAKER RYNELL
Thank You for Contacting Us!
Your information has been sent, and we will contact you shorlty...issues.
WILSON WHITAKER RYNELL
Oops, there was an error sending your message.
Please try again later.
Disclaimer:
This form does not establish an attorney-client relationship, and should only be used to contact the firm about scheduling a call or meeting. No confidential or sensitive information should be sent using this form.
We represent clients nationwide, including Dallas, Austin, Houston, and other Texas areas such as Fort Worth, Arlington, Carrollton, Plano, Allen, Lewisville, Flower Mound, Irving, Denton, McKinney, North Richland Hills, and all cities within Dallas County, Tarrant County, Collin County, and Denton County.
Wilson Whitaker Rynell
16610 Dallas Parkway, Suite 1000
Dallas, Texas 75248
972-248-8080 (MAIN)
972-248-8088 (FAX)
info@wrrlegal.com (E-MAIL)