TTAB Sustains Wrangler's Section 2(d) Opposition to "W DENIM" Logo Mark for Denim Goods and Marketing Services

The Board sustained a Section 2(d) opposition to registration of the mark W DENIM, shown first below, for various goods and services in classes 24, 25, and 35, including denim fabric, clothing made of denim, and marketing of denim fabrics [DENIM disclaimed], finding confusion likely with Opposer Wrangler's W stylized marks, shown next below, for clothing, including jeans and dungarees. Applicant sought registration under Section 66(a). It did not submit evidence or file a brief. Wrangler Apparel Corp. v. Denimci Dis Ticaret Pazarlama Anonim Sirketi, Opposition No. 91264198 (December 6, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge C. Lynch).

Strength of Opposer's Marks: The Board began with a consideration of the strength of Wrangler's marks. It found the marks, registered on the Principal Register without a Section 2(f) claim, to be conceptually strong, noting that there was no indication that they have a recognized meaning in the industry. As to commercial strength, Wrangler provided worldwide sales and advertising figures, not limited to the marks at issue here, and so the Board "cannot accord the evidence much weight." 

Wrangler's witness testified that its "W" mark was introduced on western jeans in 1947. [What are eastern jeans? - ed.]. The product line has consistently included denim. There was some "look-for" advertising involving the "W" mark. Wrangler's promotional material featured the WRANGLER mark more, and generally more prominently, than the "W" mark - except on social media.

The Board concluded that Wrangler's marks are not entitled to the highest degree of commercial strength, but should be accorded "somewhat more than" the normal scope of protection for inherently distinctive marks.

The Marks: Comparing the marks, the Board found them to be visually and phonetically similar, even taking into account the disclaimed and subordinate term DENIM. "[A]lthough the particular stylization of the W's differs among the marks and Applicant's stylization may be somewhat suggestive of jeans, the 'verbal portion of the mark is the one most likely to indicate the origin of the goods to which it is affixed." Moreover, the first Wrangler mark shown above has a stylization quite similar to the opposed mark, and might be displayed in the same shade of blue. 

The marks also convey similar connotations and commercial impressions: the letter "W." The word DENIM in the opposed mark only minimally contributes to the mark's meaning and connotation. The Board therefore found that the first DuPont factor weighed in Wrangler's favor.

The Goods/Services: As to applicant's class 25 clothing items, some are legally identical to some of the goods in Wrangler's registrations, which encompass goods made of denim. With regard to the class 24 fabrics, one of Wrangler's registrations covers dungarees, which are usually made of blue denim, as are other goods sold by Wrangler under the marks. In fact, much of the commercial strength of Wrangler's clothing line is associated with denim. Therefore, the Board found applicant's denim fabric to be related to Wrangler's clothing.

With regard to applicant's class 35 marketing services, they include the marketing of goods made wholly or in significant part of denim. Thus, some of Wrangler's goods are legally identical to the goods featured in applicant's marketing services, and so the Board found Wrangler's goods to be related to at least this retail service of applicant.

Trade Channels:  There was no evidence regarding the trade channels for applicant's class 24 goods. As to class 25, since the goods overlap, the Board must presume that those overlapping goods travel in the same trade channels to the same classes of consumers. As to class 35, Wrangler established that it sells its good on its website, as well as in some 900 retail outlets around the world. Applicant's "online marketplace for buyers and sellers of goods" would include the same channels of trade as Wrangler's goods.

Conclusion: Weighing the relevant DuPont factors, the Board found confusion likely and it therefore sustained the opposition.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: A "W" for Wrangler's, but not much to see here.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2022.