TTAB Sinks Nautica's Confusion and Dilution Claims Against NAUTICA for Motor Homes

In a 63-page opinion, the Board dismissed Nautica Apparel's Section 2(d) and Section 43(c) claims in this opposition to registration of the mark NAUTICA for "[r]ecreational vehicles, namely, motor homes." The Board found no likelihood of confusion primarily due to the differences in the involved goods. As to dilution-by-blurring, Nautica failed to prove that is mark NAUTICA is "widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States as a designation of source, " as required by the dilution statute. Nautica Apparel, Inc. v. REV Recreation Group, Inc., Opposition No. 91263603 (August 16, 2023) [Opinion by Judge Jonathan Hudis).

Opposer Nautica relied on more than a dozen registrations for the mark NAUTICA for a variety of goods and services, including clothing, furniture, perfume, paint, pool floats, retail store services, and sponsorship of sporting events.

Strength of Opposer's Mark: As to the conceptual strength of opposer's mark, of the three third-party registrations submitted by Applicant REV, two involved marks with additional wording and all three were for vastly different goods and services from those of opposer's registrations. However, the Board found that NAUTICA "is suggestive of nautical-influenced products (at the very least apparel)," and therefore "does not have as a great a scope of protection as an arbitrary mark."

As to commercial strength, the Board considered "whatever relevant evidence is made of record up to and including the time of trial." The "vast majority of Opposer’s documented evidence ... demonstrates that the chief or core products with which Opposer promotes its NAUTICA mark are apparel goods and accessories."

Opposer's goods are sold in many stores nationwide, have been promoted in periodicals of wide circulation, and have been seen in a number of television shows. Although opposer's sales and advertising figures were "impressive," they were not broken down by product category. The Board therefore could not assess opposer’s revenues: "e.g., if 90% of Opposer’s sales are for apparel, the revenues would support consumer renown for NAUTICA for apparel but not much else."

The Board concluded that opposer’s NAUTICA mark is famous in connection with apparel and apparel accessories, but as to its remaining goods and services, the mark has "average commercial strength."

The Goods and Services: Turning to the goods, opposer did not claim any trademark rights for mobile homes or any other motorized vehicles. Opposer's evidence that a single motor home company - AIRSTREAM - has collaborated with fashion designers "does not show generally that consumers would tend to think the parties’ very disparate goods come from the same source." The Board found Applicant REV's goods and opposer's goods and services to be unrelated. The Board similarly found that opposer failed to proved an overlap in trade channels.

Purchaser Sophistication: Turning to purchaser care, "the inherently expensive nature of Applicant’s goods, motor homes, as well as the careful, lengthy and detailed circumstances surrounding their purchase, to consumers who are sophisticated in their buying decisions, as shown by the evidence of record, weighs against a finding" of likely confusion.

Conclusion on Likelihood of Confusion: Balancing the relevant DuPont factors, the Board concluded that opposer had failed to prove a likelihood of confusion.

On their face, there is no similarity between Opposer’s goods and services and Applicant’s goods as identified in the asserted Registrations and opposed Application. Opposer proffered insufficient evidence of relatedness or that the respective goods and/or services of the parties travel in overlapping trade channels. Applicant’s goods are expensive, purchasing Applicant’s goods is a lengthy and detailed process, and Applicant’s consumers are sophisticated in their purchase of Applicant’s goods. Opposer’s consumers, who are knowledgeable of NAUTICA branded products, also exercise a heightened degree of care in their purchases of Opposer’s goods. On this record, the extent of potential confusion is de minimis. The presence or absence of actual confusion, the market interface between the parties, and Applicant’s right to exclude others are neutral considerations.

Dilution by Blurring: Opposer failed to show that its mark NAUTICA is a "household name."

Taken together, this record evidence tends to show that Opposer’s NAUTICA mark has achieved some level of fame for Trademark Act Section 2(d) purposes, mostly in connection with apparel and apparel accessories. However, this evidence fails to establish that Opposer’s mark is “widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States as a designation of source,” which is the standard set by the dilution statute.

And so the Board made short work of the dilution claim.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: Do you agree that "nautica" is suggestive of apparel?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2023.