RTC RICH TRAPPERS CLUB Logo Not Confusable with RTC for Clothing, Says TTAB

Despite the overlap in goods and the presumed overlap in channels of trade and classes of consumers [which the Board sometimes weighs "heavily" against the applicant], the Board reversed a refusal to register the mark shown below for "Clothing, namely, pants, shirts; footwear; headwear; all of the foregoing excluding apparel for collegiate institutes and not related to educational services and the promotion thereof” and for “On-line wholesale and retail store services featuring clothing; all of the foregoing excluding apparel for collegiate institutes and not related to educational services and the promotion thereof," finding confusion unlikely with the registered mark RTC for "Hats; Hooded sweat shirts; Scarves; Scrubs not for medical purposes; Shirts; Sweat pants; T-shirts." In re Rich Trappers Club LLC, Serial No. 97774077 (February 11, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Elizabeth K. Brock).

Applicant feebly argued that Registrant, Renton Technical College, is “a technical college that sells simple clothing bearing the name of its institution for students and faculty.” The Board noted, however, that the cited registration contains no such restrictions, and the Board must give “full sweep” to the identification of goods "regardless of a registrant’s actual business."

As we have explained in innumerable decisions, the Board may not consider arguments “about how the parties’ actual goods, services, customers, trade channels, and conditions of sale are narrower or different from the goods and services identified in the applications and registrations.”

Since there are no restrictions in the registration, Applicant’s restriction of its own identification of goods "does not impose a meaningful limitation." See In re Detroit Ath. Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Even if true [that Registrant athletic club sells clothing only to members and in one store], this assertion is, once again, irrelevant.”).

As to applicant's Class 25 goods, both the subject application and the cited registration include "shirts," and applicant's class 35 services are closely related to registrant's goods. See Detroit Ath. Co., 903 F.3d at 1307 (finding clothing and sports apparel retail services related as “confusion is likely where one party engages in retail services that sell goods of the type produced by the other party”).

Turning to the marks, the examining attorney maintained that the letters RTC are dominant in both marks. The Board disagreed, and further disagreed that applicant’s mark is confusingly similar to the cited mark in appearance, sound, meaning, and commercial impression.

While the Examining Attorney correctly states that, in general, in a likelihood of confusion analysis, wording is given greater weight than a design element in a composite mark, in this case, for the reasons explained, we find that the bundle of money character [I had to look twice - ed.] is entitled to at least as much weight as the RTC wording, which in turn reflects the meaning RICH TRAPPER$ CLUB. We do not find that the RTC element is dominant, as it merely reinforces the phrase RICH TRAPPER$ CLUB and the character depiction of that phrase.

As to sound, "it is likely that consumers would refer to the mark as RICH TRAPPER$ CLUB because it is so tied to the prominent design element, explains the RTC acronym, and captures the overall meaning of the mark; this is not true of the RTC acronym alone."

As to meaning and connotation, the Board pooh-poohed the examining attorney’s assertion that it is “plausible” that purchasers will believe that RTC in the Cited Registration means RICH TRAPPER$ CLUB.

Finally, as to overall commercial impression, "the three components of Applicant’s mark—the bundle of money character, RTC, and RICH TRAPPER$ CLUB—work in concert to create the overall commercial impression." The Board concluded that applicant’s mark creates a commercial impression distinct from Registrant’s RTC mark."

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: I find this result rather surprising, but not necessarily wrong. It's surprising because the goods overlap, the service are related, and the proposed mark encompasses the cited mark in its entirety, and prominently so. Usually that's a recipe for a Board affirmance.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.