TTABlog Test: Is HVNLYDAZE Confusable with HVNLYFIT for Overlapping Clothing Items?

The USPTO refused to register the mark HVNLYDAZE for various clothing items, including t-shirts, concluding that confusion is likely with the registered mark HVNLYFIT for overlapping clothing items, including t-shirts. Applicant argued that the marks have different connotations, and that HVNLY is equivalent to "heavenly," a common term and a weak formative. How do you think this appeal came out? In re Heavenly Daze Limited, Serial No. 98209106 (August 14, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christopher C. Larkin).

Applicant did not make of record any third-party uses or registrations of HVNLY-formative marks for clothing under the sixth DuPont factor (the “number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods”). The Board took judicial notice that "the word 'heavenly,' the acknowledged 'phonetic equivalent' of HVNLY, has a colloquial meaning of 'completely delightful' in addition to religious meanings such as 'of or relating to heaven or the heavens' and 'suggesting the blessed state of heaven.'"

We find that in the context of the clothing identified in the cited ’362 Registration, the prefix HVNLY- makes the cited mark HVNLYFIT as a whole merely mildly suggestive of “completely delightful” garments, and “we find the cited mark is entitled to ‘the normal scope of protection to which inherently distinctive marks are entitled.’”

The Board found HVNLYFIT and HVNLYDAZE to be "visually similar, as both begin with the disemvoweled contraction HVNLY." The second elements of the marks are different "and some consumers may notice and recall the difference." "But the marks share the same structure, starting with the dominant 'HVNLY' element and then add a second word to create a HVNLY-formative mark. This structure results in marks that look like variations on a 'heavenly' theme."

This is important because consumers familiar with the HVNLYFIT mark and the goods provided under that mark may view the HVNLYDAZE mark as an extension of the HVNLYFIT mark or as an affiliated branch of the business that provides clothing under the HVNLYFIT mark.

In sum, the Board found that the HVNLYFIT and HVNLYDAZE marks "are similar in appearance from the standpoint of a consumer with a general rather than specific recollection of the cited HVNLYFIT mark for clothing who separately sees the HVNLYDAZE mark used for legally identical goods."

The Board next found that the marks are similar in sound, since the first and dominant element of each mark will sound identical.

Finally, the marks HVNLYFIT and HVNLYDAZE "are also similar in meaning and are likely to create the same commercial impressions" because the prefix HVNLY- "dominates the meaning of the marks, as the first element" of both marks. 

The HVNLY-prefix imbues both marks with the same celestial aura of “complete delight,” and the respective -FIT and -DAZE suffixes “do not add more distinctive or striking content to the mark[s].” The HVNLYFIT and HVNLYDAZE marks are similar in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression, and the first DuPont factor strongly supports a conclusion that confusion is likely.

And so, the Board upheld the refusal.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: How did you do? I find the "line extension" argument to be superfluous at best, and at worst conclusory and questionable. Either the marks are confusingly similar, or they're not. The line extension argument seems to be a way of end-running the similarity issue when the marks aren't really that close. Also, I don't think the marks have the same connotation: "heavenly days" is not the same as "heavenly fit."

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.