TTAB Reverses 2(d) Refusal of GHOST AGENCY & Design for Advertising Services due in part to a Crowded Field of "GHOST" Marks

The Board overturned a Section 2(d) refusal to register the mark GHOST AGENCY & Design for various advertising and marketing services [AGENCY disclaimed], concluding that confusion is unlikely with the registered mark shown second below, for "Advertising and marketing services." The involved services overlap, and to that extent are presumed to travel through the same trade channels to the same classes of consumers. But the differences in the marks and the weakness of GHOST as a formative led to success for the applicant. In re The Ghost Agency, Inc., Serial No. 98709623 (June 18, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Martha B. Allard).

Applicant argued that the cited mark is "relatively weak because it is highly suggestive of a characteristic of the underlying services[,]" and because it coexists with sixty-three registered GHOST-formative marks. The Board noted that the cited mark is registered on the Principal Register and is therefore presumably inherently distinctive, but nonetheless, distinctive marks may be conceptually and/or commercially weak.

According to applicant, "It is very common for companies that provide white label services for others to use the word “ghost” to refer to the anonymous nature of their services. Clients hire “ghost” agencies like Applicant to work behind the scenes to build and promote their brands. *** When viewed in connection with the marketing, advertising, and entertainment services being offered under the cited marks, then, the registered marks inform consumers that the services offered are meant to be white label services for others."

The Board disregarded many of the third-party registrations, leaving 12 registrations "in the name of eleven different entities that identify services that are identical to or encompassed by the services identified in the cited mark," including GHOST CUBE, GHOST GIRL, and THE WRITING GHOST.

[T]he record shows that the term GHOST is highly suggestive because it brings to mind a feature or purpose of the services for which the marks are registered–to render advertising and marketing services for and in the name of another. As a result, the term GHOST is conceptually weak when used with advertising and marketing services and entitled only to a narrow scope of protection. See Juice Generation, 794 F.3d at 1339.

Turning to a comparison of the marks, the examining attorney maintained that the word GHOST is the dominant element in applicant's mark, since AGENCY has been disclaimed, and that dominant element is identical to the dominant element in the cited mark. Not so fast, said the Board.

[W]e disagree that the cited mark makes the commercial impression of the word GHOST with a line through it. While we acknowledge that this understanding is consistent with the description of the mark, the description of the mark is not binding upon our determination since “[a] mark’s meaning is based on the impression actually created by the mark in the minds of consumers, not on the impression that the applicant states the mark is intended to convey.”

The Board found that the initial letter appears to be a lowercase “q”, not a lowercase “g.” "Thus, the mark makes the commercial impression of “Q HOST,” which suggests some sort of hosting, possibly web hosting, for example, that is commonly associated with websites, which are a common form of digital advertising and marketing."

The Board also found that that this stylized G, with its clean, crisp lines and contrasting colors, causes Applicant’s mark to make a different commercial impression than that of the cited mark.

Even were we to find that the cited mark engenders the commercial impression of GHOST with a line through it, rather than Q HOST, we would still find confusion is unlikely. This is because the record demonstrates that the term GHOST is conceptually weak and this conceptual weakness, when combined with the dissimilarity of the stylizations of the marks discussed above, would also be sufficient to find that confusion is not likely.

And so, the Board reversed the refusal.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: It did not occur to me that the cited mark could be read as "q host." But then, I already had the word "ghost" in my mind.

PS: why doesn't applicant's mark look like "c host?"

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.