TTABlog Test: Is SWAG GOLF for Clothing Confusable with SWAG for Belt Buckles?
Curious readers sometimes ask for follow-ups on cases that I list in my oral argument posts. Well, here's one: an opposition to registration of the mark SWAG GOLF for "Clothing for athletic use, namely, padded shirts; Clothing, namely, khakis; Belts for clothing; Bottoms as clothing; Embroidered clothing, namely, shirts, hats; Hoodies; Jerseys; Tops as clothing; Wearable garments and clothing, namely, shirts" [GOLF disclaimed], on the ground of likelihood of confusion with the registered mark SWAG for, inter alia, belt buckles. How do you think it came out? [Hint: the opinion was only eleven pages long]. Kuldisak, LLC d/b/a Swag Golf v. RASL Enterprises Inc., Opposition No. 91276063 (December 9, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Mark Lebow).
The Marks: Not surprisingly, the Board found the word SWAG to be the dominant element in applicant's mark, since it's the first word in the mark and GOLF is disclaimed. Moreover, applying its "nose-of-wax" approach, the Board noted that applicant "could display its standard character mark SWAG GOLF with emphasis on SWAG, as shown below, which would also enhance the marks’ similarity:"
And so, the Board found the first DuPont factor to favor opposer.
The Goods: The Board focused on the "Belts for clothing" in the opposed application, and it took judicial notice of the American Heritage Dictionary’s definition of "buckle": "[a] clasp for fastening two ends, as of straps or a belt, in which a device attached to one of the ends is fitted our coupled to the other."
Based on the identifications of goods themselves and the above-noted dictionary definition, we find that Applicant’s identified "belts for clothing" and Opposer’s "belt buckles" are inherently related and complementary. *** We, accordingly, find that Applicant’s and Opposer’s goods are related, and that the second DuPont factor weighs in favor of a likelihood of confusion.
Conclusion: And so, the Board sustained the opposition.
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlogger comment: A real yawner! Somehow, one expects cases that go to oral argument to be cutting edge, or at least interesting. Not so here.
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2024.
posted by John L. Welch @ 12/11/2024
3 comments
3 Comments:
Seems like a no-brainer. You can't own Golf. Take out Golf and the marks are identical.
Based upon my experience doing an oral argument, I believe the Board might issue the decision faster after oral argument than just deciding the briefs (because they need to read the briefs and have the case record handy for the argument) so I have the feeling parties request oral argument simply to get a faster decision from the Board.
I think the three judges read the briefs and one of them reads the entire record. Yes, in a simple case like this one, a decision would probably come pretty quickly. Judge Bergsman, now retired, would often issue the decision the next day. PS: If the oral argument is done virtually, there's not much added expense. Yet less than 10% of cases have oral argument.
Post a Comment
<< Home