Renown of Serena Williams Doesn't Avoid Refusal of SERENA VENTURES over SERENA for Investment Services

The Board swatted away various feeble arguments by Applicant Serena Williams in affirming a refusal to register SERENA VENTURES [VENTURES disclaimed] in view of the registered mark SERENA, for overlapping investment services. Starting out behind the 8-ball, Applicant Williams had to somehow overcome the obvious similarity of the marks. She failed to do so. In re Serena Williams, Serial No. 90321926 (August 12, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Jennifer L. Elgin).

Williams cryptically argued that her mark has a "layered meaning" that "conveys a distinct corporate and institutional identity." Interpreting this as an argument that SERENA VENTURES refers to Applicant Williams as a well-known tennis player, the Board pointed out that "[s]urprisingly, Applicant did not make of record any evidence to support her identity or claim of fame (especially as to her first name without her surname, as appears in the mark), and nevertheless, attorney argument is not evidence." However, the Board came to her rescue:

We take judicial notice, as a commonly known fact not subject to dispute, that Applicant is a well-known tennis player. See TBMP § 1208.04 and authorities cited therein. We do so solely for the limited purpose of evaluating whether the term SERENA carries a particular connotation relevant to the first DuPont factor.

The Board then observed that, even if consumers would associate SERENA VENTURES with Applicant, the same connotation would be applied to the cited mark SERENA in connection with the same services. "In short, there is nothing inherent in the marks or the financial services at issue that would portray different meanings to consumers – as it might, for example, for services related to tennis or sports in general." And so the Board found that the first DuPont factor favored a finding of likely confusion.

Williams feebly argued that the registrant's services are offered only in Clearwater, Florida, while her services are not offered in Clearwater. Irrelevant, said the Board, pointing out that this might be relevant in an infringement action, but the registrant "owns an unrestricted registration which gives Registrant presumptive exclusive rights to nationwide use of its mark in connection with the identified services under Trademark Act Section 7(b), 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b), regardless of its actual extent of use."

The Board acknowledged that both applicant’s and registrant's customers would exercise "somewhat greater than ordinary care" in seeking and providing venture capital investment services, and so the fourth DuPont factor tipped "slightly against likelihood of confusion."

Williams asserted that there was no evidence of actual confusion, but the Board noted that there was "no opportunity to hear from Registrant about whether it is aware of any reported instances of confusion in the context of this ex parte appeal." In any case, according to Williams, there was no actual overlap in trading areas that might generate incidents of actual confusion.

Summarizing, the Board found that the first, second, and third DuPont factors weighed "heavily" in favor of likelihood of confusion, and outweighed the fourth DuPont factor, which weighed slightly against likelihood of confusion. The fifth, seventh, eighth, tenth, twelfth, and thirteenth factors were neutral.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: WYHA? What if the proposed mark had been SERENA WILLIAMS? Would her fame overcome a similar refusal?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.