TTAB Affirms 2(e)(4) Refusal of Rare Surname "TUGENDHAT" for Seating Furniture Due to Applicant's Own Marketing Materials

The Board upheld a Section 2(e)(4) refusal of the proposed mark TUGENDHAT for "seating furniture," deeming the mark to be primarily merely a surname. Applicant Knoll argued that Tugendhat is an exceptionally rare surname but the Board pointed out that "even a rare surname may be held primarily merely a surname if its primary significance to purchasers is that of a surname." The evidence showed that "there is meaningful and fairly sufficient exposure to the surname throughout the United States, especially Applicant’s own marketing materials in an online catalog or at the point of sale." In re Knoll, Inc., Serial No. 98370045 [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge George C. Pologeorgis).

Wikipedia entries indicated that "Tugendhat" was the surname of a family of Czech-Jewish textile and oil industrialists. Villa Tugendhat is an architecturally significant building in Brno, Czech Republic. The Tugendhat Chair was designed by Miles van der Rohe and Lilly Reich in 1929-1930 for the Tugendhat Villa. The Board noted that these Wikipedia statements are hearsay, but "because the content of the Wikipedia entries is consistent with other evidence of record, we accord these entries probative value to the extent that they show that TUGENDHAT, TUGENDHAT VILLA, and TUGENDHAT CHAIR have achieved recognition significant enough that Wikipedia entries devoted to them have been created."

Most significantly, Knolls's own promotional materials emphasized the connection with the Tugendhat family and villa, the historical association, and the surname's origins. Knoll stated in its brief that "the Goods are named after the Tugendhat chair designed for the Tugendhat Villa, and named for the Tugendhat family …."

The evidence revealed at most 423 persons with the surname Tugendhat. The Board pointed out, however, that "the determination of whether a surname is common or rare is not determined solely by comparing the number of listings of the surname to the total number of listings in a computerized database, because even the most common surname would represent only a small fraction of the database." "Moreover, "even if TUGENDHAT” is a relatively rare surname in the United States, that would not per se preclude a finding that a term is primarily merely a surname inasmuch as even a rare surname may be held primarily merely a surname."

Put simply, Applicant’s self-made connection between its products and the Tugendhat family and its eponymous villa exacerbates the surname significance of TUGENDHAT because actual purchasers of Applicant’s products will encounter the mark alongside surname use of TUGENDHAT when viewing Applicant’s own advertising and marketing material and even point-of-sale information.

Knoll argued that the term TUGENDHAT is best recognized as the name of an architectural landmark, i.e., the Villa Tugendhat, and a specific design style of furniture, namely, the Tugendhat chair, and so consumers will associate the term with aesthetics and design, not a family lineage. However, there was no evidence to support that contention, nor evidence showing that "Tugendhat" has any meaning other than as a surname.

Knoll contended that Tugendhat does not have "the typical structure or phonetic quality of common American surnames" but instead is like the coined terms used by Ikea for its furniture and home goods. The Board was unmoved. There was no evidence that consumers would perceive Tugendhat as a brand name akin to Ikea's brands. Moreover, the Ikea brand names (Swedish-based) are "linguistically and culturally distinct from the German or Czech language."

In sum, we find that the purchasing public will understand TUGENDHAT as a family name regardless of whether descendants currently work for Applicant simply because Applicant’s own marketing material ties the mark to the Tugendhat family villa, reinforcing the surname perception of the purchasing public.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: Does the reference to a old Czech surname necessarily mean that American consumers will think it's a current American surname?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.

Precedential No. 1: TTAB Finds 8-Slice Pancake Configuration Mark De Jure Functional

In the first precedential opinion of 2026 (not counting the January re-designation of the 2025 DANKE/MERCI decision), the Board affirmed a refusal to register the proposed product configuration mark shown below, for pancakes, under Section 23(c) of the Lanham Act. The Board found that certain utilitarian advantages provided by the design, coupled with the applicants' own marketing materials and their statements to the Examining Attorney touting the design’s utilitarian advantages, required refusal of the application in order to "'protect[] competitors against a disadvantage (unrelated to recognition or reputation) that trademark protection might otherwise impose, namely their inability reasonably to replicate important non-reputation-related product features.'" (quoting Qualitex, 514 U.S. at 169). In re Misty Everson and Christine Maynard, Serial No. 97104306 (March 31, 2026) [precedential] (Opinion by Judge Robert Lavache).

The proposed mark "consists of a three-dimensional product design of a round pancake consisting of 8 uniform wedges. The broken lines depicting the curved outer edges of the wedges indicate placement of the mark on the goods and are not part of the mark. The stippling is a feature of the mark and does not indicate color."

Section 23(c) permits registration on the Supplemental Register of, inter alia, "any matter that as a whole is not functional." The Board observed that "the caselaw applying Section 2(e)(5) to potentially functional matter is equally applicable to functionality refusals under Section 23(c)." See Heatcon, 2015 TTAB LEXIS 360, at *12. 

Matter is functional "'if it is essential to the use or purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or quality of the article,’ that is, if exclusive use of the feature would put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage." Qualitex, 514 U.S. at 165 (quoting Inwood Labs. v. Ives Labs., 456 U.S. 844, 850 n.10 (1982)). The Board once again applied the Morton-Norwich factors to determine whether the subject design at issue is functional for trademark purposes:

(1) the existence of a utility patent disclosing the utilitarian advantages of the design; 

(2) advertising materials in which the originator of the design touts the design’s utilitarian advantages;

(3) the availability to competitors of functionally equivalent designs; and

(4) facts indicating that the design results in a comparatively simple or cheap method of manufacturing the product.

Becton, 675 F.3d at 1374 (citing Valu Eng’g, Inc. v. Rexnord Corp., 278 F.3d 1268, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); see Morton-Norwich, 671 F.2d at 1340-41.

Evidence was lacking as to the first and fourth Morton-Norwich factors, but the second and third factors supported the refusal.

Touting: Applicant's own "Brand Style Guide" stated that this design should be touted as a “new team-sized meal option” that is "shareable," 'dippable," and '[a]ny time-able." During prosecution, applicants explained that the design "allows pancakes . . . to be eaten seated, standing up, or walking," such that '[n]o utensils are needed, and it targets a family-sized serving." The design "allows family members to reach in to grab a slice or use a pie server to obtain a piece" of the pancake and enables "d[]ipping into a sauce such as maple syrup or blueberry compote."

Examining Attorney Joshua Sturman submitted excerpts from fourteen third-party websites that feature pancake recipes and that include photographs of pancakes cut into roughly equal wedges, often eight equal wedges.

The Board found that Applicant’s own marketing materials and statements "directly address, and express, the utilitarian advantages of the proposed product design, namely, facilitating more convenient serving, sharing, consumption, and transporting of the pancake." The third-party evidence provided "additional support for the conclusion that the product design embodied in the proposed mark offers certain utilitarian advantages, namely, shareability and customization of toppings on the individual wedges or slices."

We find that Applicant’s arguments to the contrary—that "there is no practical advantage to the [design’s] eight equal slices" and that the claimed design would "not confer any functional benefit like easier handling or consumption" contradict its own materials and prior statements in the record, which clearly emphasize the utility of a design that provides individual slices, particularly equal slices.

And so, the Board concluded that the second Morton-Norwich factor "strongly" supported the refusal.

Alternative Designs: Applicants argued that there is no competitive need to use their design because "there [are] many ways to present pancakes and that using 8 slices is only one of many," pointing to evidence showing six-, seven-, and ten-slice configurations, and also to photographs of pancakes presented in a stacked configuration, in some cases with a wedge cut out of the entire stack.

The Board, however, agreed with the Examining Attorney that, as a general matter, alternative designs need not be considered if the other evidence of record establishes functionality. See Becton, 675 F.3d at 1376 (stating that there is no need to consider availability of alternative designs “if functionality is found based on other considerations”). Nonetheless, for the sake of completeness, the Board considered these alternative designs.

As to the stacked pancakes, applicants failed to establish that this configuration "offers the same utilitarian benefits as the proposed design, at least with respect to facilitating more convenient serving, sharing, consuming, and transporting of the pancake," and so this is not a "functionally equivalent design." As to the unstacked pancakes, the only differences are in the number of slices.

[C]onsistent with the statements made in Applicant’s “Brand Style Guide” and in its response to the Examining Attorney’s request for information, both the drawing of the mark and the specimens of use show that the eight equal slices claimed in the applied-for configuration can result in eight appropriately-sized servings, especially when the pancake is large (or family-size) and shared among a group of people. As Applicant itself states, “[t]he number of slices in a pancake is usually determined by practical considerations, like the size of the pancake, [or] the desired portion size.

The Board observed that "the eight-equal-slices configuration is one of a very few superior designs for the utilitarian advantages Applicant itself touts. This same eight-slice configuration is commonly used with pizzas, pies, and cakes, as shown in the Examining Attorney’s evidence." [I find it a lot easier to cut eight more-or-less equal slices than seven or ten. - ed.] "Therefore, allowing 'exclusive use of the feature would put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage,' Qualitex, 514 U.S. at 165, and thus hinder competition."

Applicants pointed to the stippling in the mark which, according to their brief, represents “a texture” and “a gradient of the texture” of the pancake. The Board, however, noted the many photographs of pancakes in the record and concluded that the texture that Applicants claim "is simply the texture that typically results from the process of making pancakes. In other words, it is akin to a by-product of the manufacturing process. Therefore, we find that the claimed texture feature is functional." Cf., e.g., McGowen Precision Barrels, LLC v. Proof Rsch., Inc., No. 92067618, 2021 TTAB LEXIS 167, at *80, *84-85 (finding respondent’s trade dress functional because, inter alia, it resulted from the manufacturing process for the relevant products); Saint-Gobain Corp. v. 3M Co., No. 91119166, 2007 TTAB LEXIS 82, at *78 (finding the purple color of applicant’s sandpaper functional where, inter alia, it was a natural by-product of the manufacturing process).

Accordingly, the Board found that the third Morton-Norwich factor supported the refusal.

Conclusion: Finding the proposed configuration mark to be a functional design for applicants' goods, the Board affirmed the refusal under Section 23(c).

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: Compare this decision with the Board's non-precedential decision in the Hershey bar case, TTABlogged here, where it reversed a functionality refusal of the 12-segment configuration of that candy bar.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.

TTAB Posts April 2026 Hearing Schedule

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Tee-Tee-Ā-Bee) has scheduled four oral hearings for the month of April 2026. In the first three cases listed below the hearings will held virtually. In the fourth, the hearing will be in-person at the Madison East Building 600 Dulany Street, 9th Floor (Hearing Room C), Alexandria, VA. Briefs and other papers for each case may be found at TTABVUE via the links provided.

April 16, 2026 - 10:00 AM [Virtual]: In re Western Veterinary IP, LLC, Serial No. 98727230 [Refusal to register the mark MONTANA EQUINE for "Breeding services for horses; Horse breeding and stud services; Veterinary sports medicine and physical rehabilitation services for horses through use of modalities and exercise; Veterinary dentistry; Veterinary emergency and trauma services; Veterinary services; Veterinary services, namely, full service veterinary care for horses, ponies, mules and donkeys including surgery, vaccinations, lameness treatment, reproductive medicine, preventative care and internal medicine; Veterinary specialty services featuring advanced dental and oral surgery; Veterinary specialty services featuring advanced medical, diagnostic and surgical services for animals; Veterinary surgery" [EQUINE disclaimed] in view of the registered mark MONTANA ROSE EQUINE THERAPY for “Equine massage and for "Equine massage and kinesthesiology services; Massage therapy services for horses; Physical rehabilitation services for horses through use of massage and exercises" [EQUINE THERAPY disclaimed].]

April 23, 2026 - 2:00 PM [Virtual]: In re Cardiovascular Research Foundation, Serial No. 98354882 [Refusal to register the mark NEW YORK VALVES: THE STRUCTURAL HEART SUMMIT for "downloadable electronic publications, namely, medical journals, books, magazines, fact sheets, update sheets, newsletters, and booklets in the field of vascular medicine:" "educational services, namely, conferences, seminars, and workshops concerning mammalian or human circulation system or heart valves, valvular heart conditions or diseases, and transcatheter valve therapies or interventions; providing non-downloadable electronic publications, namely, non-down medical journals, books, magazines, fact sheets, update sheets, newsletters, and booklets in the field of vascular medicine;" and "vascular research" [NEW YORK, SUMMIT, and THE STRUCTURAL HEART SUMMIT disclaimed] on the ground that the proposed mark is primarily geographically descriptive under Section 2(e)(2).

April 28, 2026 - 10:00 AM [Virtual]: In re BS Liquor, LLC DBA MudHen Brewing Company, Serial No. 97474171 [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark MUDHEN BREWING COMPANY for "beer" [BREWING COMPANY disclaimed] on the ground of likelihood of confusion with the registered mark MUD HENS for "restaurant and bar services."]

April 30, 2026 - 11:00 AM [In-person]: Campari America LLC v. Seven Skies, LLC, Opposition No. 91291788 [Section 2(d) Opposition to registration of the mark SEVEN SKIES for "Non-alcoholic cocktails, namely, mocktails" and "Alcoholic cocktails; Alcoholic fruit cocktail drinks; Prepared alcoholic cocktail; Wine-based cocktails" in view of the registered mark SKYY for "distilled spirits, namely vodka."]

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: What say you? See any WYHA?s?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.

TTAB Overturns 2(d) Refusal of HOUSE OF PRIM Due to Prior Settlement Agreement Between Applicant and Cited Registrant

The Board reversed a refusal to register the mark HOUSE OF PRIM for goods and services related to home organization and design, concluding that confusion is unlikely with the registered mark PRIM for "Home organization services, namely, sorting and organizing household belongings." The Board found the marks confusingly similar and the services related, but not applicant's goods. However, a prior settlement agreement between applicants and the cited registrant outweighed all the other DuPont factors. In re Prim LLC, Serial Nos. 98301711, 98301726, 98301752, 98301773, 98301804 (March 27, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cheryl S. Goodman).

The tenth DuPont factor, the market interface between the applicant and registrant, required an evaluation of a March 11, 2022 “Settlement Agreement” between them. "'[D]epending on the circumstances,' agreements between the involved parties 'may ... carry great weight' since the parties are in a 'better position to know the real life situation than bureaucrats or judges."

In the Settlement Agreement, applicant promised to re-brand from PRIM LIVING to HOUSE OF PRIM and the parties agreed that this new mark would not cause confusion with the PRIM mark. Applicant agreed not to apply to register PRIM or any similar variant, including PRIM LIVING. The parties  promised continued cooperation in taking reasonable action to avoid confusion, and to make reasonable efforts to rectify any instances of likelihood of confusion that came to their attention.

The Examining Attorney argued that the settlement agreement does not function as a consent to registration of the mark in these applications because it was executed before the applications were filed. The Examining Attorney also argued that the agreement does not contain provisions “fundamental to a consent agreement.”

The Board observed that in In re Dare Foods, Inc., No. 88758625, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 92, at *24, it stated that it was aware of "no authority requiring a consent agreement to discuss all of these factors [listed in Four Seasons Hotels] in order to be probative.”

In this case, the parties’ settlement agreement, while not technically a consent to registration of a mark in any particular application, is an acknowledgment of a broader settlement relating to PRIM LIVING and other confusingly similar variants, and also addresses Applicant’s ability to rebrand with the mark that is the subject of these applications. * * * While the settlement agreement does not include some of the provisions we would typically see in a consent agreement, it was reached after the parties had been seeking to resolve a dispute regarding marks Registrant determined were confusingly similar (infringing) to her PRIM mark.

The Board noted that the agreement explicitly refers to Registrant’s PRIM registration. "One would expect that, if the agreement’s broad provision that Applicant rebrand as HOUSE OF PRIM covered only the right to use that mark but not the right to register it for home organization services, the agreement would have said so explicitly."

The settlement agreement strongly supports Applicant’s position of no likelihood of confusion based on the reasoned analysis of Applicant and Registrant who understand the nature of their businesses.

The Board concluded that the agreement is entitled to "substantial weight," and it "outweighs the factors that indicate confusion is likely in all five applications."

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: If during negotiations, applicant wanted to be able register HOUSE OF PRIM, it could have expressly included that in the agreement. So, I think the absence of such a provision is meaningless. The fact is that the registrant did not consent to registration. Will we see an opposition?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.

TTAB Reverses CASA BLANCA Refusal: UPSTO Fails to Prove Relatedness of Tequila and Wine

The Board reversed the USPTO's refusal to register the mark CASA BLANCA for "distilled spirits, namely, spirits distilled from the blue tequilana weber variety of agave plant,” concluding that the USPTO failed to prove likely confusion with the registered mark CASABLANCA for "wine." The Board found the marks to be "nearly identical" and the trade channels overlapping, with the goods subject to impulse purchases. However, it also found the cited mark to be "highly suggestive" and the evidence insufficient to establish that "Applicant’s and Registrant’s particular types of alcoholic beverages are related." In re Lucien G. Lallouz, Serial No. 90782980 (March 27, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Angela Lykos).

The Goods: The Examining Attorney submitted only two examples of third-party uses under the same mark, and no third-party registrations covering both tequila and wine. "Two examples of third-party marketplace uses is unconvincing, especially when there is no indication whether Applicant’s specific type of tequila is made by any of these wineries/distilleries."

The Examining Attorney also contended that the goods are related because they are "complementary beverages often used together as cocktail mixers." The Board observed, however, that "[i]t is not unusual for recipes to contain many different ingredients and consumers are not likely to assume merely from the fact that two items are called for in the same recipe that they necessarily emanate from the same source of origin."

The mere existence of a handful of cocktail recipes incorporating wine and tequila does not mean that consumers recognize both beverages as ingredients commonly used together for cocktail recipes. * * * [W]e cannot extrapolate from this evidence that consumers following each recipe believe that these ingredients come from the same source. There is no evidence that the recipes use the same brands producing both wine and tequila. For the most part, wine and tequila are distinct types of alcoholic beverages consumed individually, not together, and this evidence fails to show otherwise.

The Examining Attorney lastly argued, based on a single article, that wine and tequila are related because tequila can be made using wine-making techniques. "Again, this evidence fails to show wine and tequila offered to consumers from the same entity under the same trademark."

The Board concluded that the second DuPont factor weighed against a likelihood of confusion finding, noting that "on a more developed record" it might rule otherwise.

Channels of Trade: The evidence showed that the normal trade channels for both tequila and wine include U.S. importers, wholesale distributors, online retailers, and the premises of winery/distillery tasting rooms. Applicant Lallouz argued that "in retail settings, wines are typically segregated and displayed separately from distilled spirits, a segregation that extends to online platforms and restaurant menus." The Board was unmoved: "Consumers browsing the aisles in retail liquor establishments are likely to 'jaunt to another counter or section of the store' and encounter a variety of alcoholic beverages and spirits, including wine and tequila."

Strength of the Cited Mark: The evidence revealed that "Casablanca" refers to wine originating from the Casablanca Valley in Chile, "making the cited mark highly suggestive." Third-party marketplace use of "Casablanca Valley" in connection with wine to indicate geographic origin "does not demonstrate commercial weakness because none of the examples involve use of 'Casablanca Valley' as a trademark. But with over 1200 examples, it is a strong indicator of conceptual weakness as it signals geographic origin." The Board therefore found that the sixth DuPont factor favored Applicant Lallouz.

Conclusion: Weighing the relevant DuPont factors, the Board found that "the lack of competent evidence to prove the relatedness between the goods, combined with the cited mark’s relative conceptual weakness in connection with wine, outweighs the virtual similarity of the marks and overlapping trade channels." It concluded that confusion is unlikely.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: Will we see an opposition by the cited registrant?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.

Prof. Curtin Files Reply to Opposition to Petition for Certiorari in RAPUNZEL Consumer Standing Case

Petitioner/Opposer/Appellant Rebecca Curtin has filed her Reply [here] to UTH's Opposition to her Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The case has been distributed for conference on April 17, 2026.

The Court has long held that the standards applicable to administrative agencies and federal courts differ. Indeed, the Court eighty-five years ago instructed that the “vital differentiations between the functions of judicial and administrative tribunals” must be observed. FCC v. Pottsville Broad. Co., 309 U.S. 134, 144 (1940). The Federal Circuit has disregarded that admonishment by imposing doctrines restricting access to federal courts, such as the zone-of-interests test, on administrative trademark opposition proceedings. That not only conflicts with this Court’s decisions, but also with the decisions of the Third, Fifth, and D.C. Circuits, which hold that such restrictions do not apply to administrative agencies.

* * * * * * * *

The importance of the issue presented further reinforces the need for this Court’s review. And this case is the appropriate vehicle to address the question presented. UTH suggests the result would be the same under the test that existed before the Federal Circuit’s errant decision in this case. But that suggestion ignores the record in this case. The Trademark Trial & Appeal Board (“Board”) concluded that Curtin satisfied the long-standing test from Ritchie v. Simpson, 170 F.3d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1999), that governed who may participate in opposition proceedings. Only after improperly importing the test from Lexmark—requiring the zone-of-interests and proximate-causation tests—did the Board change position. The resolution of the question presented is of consequence to this case.

Read comments and post your comment here.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.

TTABlog Test: Is DUNDER MIFFLIN Confusable with MIFFLIN for Paper Products?

The Office [The USPTO, that is] refused to register the proposed mark DUNDER MIFFLIN for various goods in class 16, including gift wrapping paper, paper gift wrapping ribbons, printed greeting cards, and paper party supplies, finding confusion likely with the registered mark MIFFLIN for "paper labels and tags” and “plastic ornamental bows for decoration and gift wrapping and other paper products. The Board found the goods to be complementary and related, but what about the marks? How do you think this came out? In re NBCUniversal Media, LLC, Serial No. 97831933 (March 24, 2026)[not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Elizabeth A. Dunn).

The Examining Attorney argued that MIFFLIN (the name of Pennsylvania's first governor) is the dominant word in Applicant NBCUniversal's mark: "MIFFLIN could be seen as a shortened version or reference to DUNDER MIFFLIN. For example, DUNDER could be considered suggestive of dunderhead, which refers to an idiot in colloquial terms and thus act as a modifier to MIFFLIN, evoking humorous buffoonery."

The Board didn't buy it. There was no evidence that DUNDER is a dictionary term or has any descriptive significance vis-a-vis the involved goods. "The record provides no reason to find that the term DUNDER would be perceived as a form of 'dunderhead,' or that the term DUNDER would be perceived as a modifier of MIFFLIN."

Based on its fanciful nature and first position in the mark, we find the term DUNDER is slightly dominant in creating the commercial impression of Applicant’s DUNDER MIFFLIN mark. * * * In fact, we find that the mark DUNDER MIFFLIN creates a different commercial impression than the one created by the mark MIFFLIN alone.

Google search results for DUNDER MIFFLIN uniformly refer to the fictional paper supply company which is the setting for the television show "The Office." An article from Variety states that "The Office" was "by Far the Most-Streamed TV show in 2020," according to Nielsen ratings. Merchandise from Amazon, Peacock Shop, Etsy, and Spencer’s bear the DUNDER MIFFLIN mark and associate the mark with the show.

The Examining Attorney oddly argued that the comparative fame of the involved marks "is not significant” in an ex parte appeal. While that may be true in the abstract, "determining the connotation and overall commercial impression created by the two marks is part of the likelihood of confusion analysis." The Board found the evidence of how the purchasing public encounters the DUNDER MIFFLIN mark to be directly relevant to the assessment of the mark’s connotation and commercial impression. "That the same type of evidence may be considered in connection with fame does not bar its consideration."

The Board also disagreed with the Examining Attorney’s argument that “[A]pplicant has not established the relevant consumer of the applied-for goods would readily recognize the reference of DUNDER MIFFLIN to a fictional paper company associated with The Office.” The Board noted that "[t]he paper labels and tags and paper gift wrap involved here are paper products available to the general consumer. The Office was a television show about a paper company, and originally available to the general consumer on a television network, and, as demonstrated by the article in Variety, subsequently viewed by many more consumers via streaming services."

We find that the fanciful prefatory term DUNDER alters the overall commercial impression created by the term MIFFLIN alone. In addition, we find significant evidence that the connotation of the term DUNDER MIFFLIN to the general consumer of Applicant’s goods is a reference to the setting for the television show “The Office.”

And so, the Board reversed the refusal to register.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: I used to watch the original British version of "The Office," when I still liked Ricky Gervais.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.

TTAB Reverses 2(d) Refusal of GOOD TIMES for Bourbon over Five "GOOD TIME(S)" Registrations for Alcoholic Beverages

The USPTO cited five registrations in refusing to register the mark GOOD TIMES for "bourbon," all of the registrations owned by different owners. Although the goods are legally identical or related, the Board found that the differences in the marks and the conceptual weakness of "good times" (the first and sixth DuPont factors) outweighed the second and third factors. In re Genuine Risk, Serial No. 90170906 (March 23, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge George C. Pologeorgis).

The Examining Attorney cited the following registered marks:

• GOODE TIMES GUARANTEED for “alcoholic beverages except beers” 
• LET THE GOOD TIMES ROLL for “distilled spirits” 
• WE GROW GOOD TIMES for “alcoholic beverages except beers; distilled spirits” 
• CERTIFIED GOOD TIME and Design for “distilled spirits; vodka" 
• GUARD THE GOOD TIMES for “whiskey”

The Goods/Trade Channels/Customers: Because the broad identifications in each of the five cited registrations encompass Applicant Genuine Risk's more narrowly defined goods, the second DuPont factor "strongly" favored a finding of likelihood of confusion. Furthermore, since the involved goods are legally identical and there are no restrictions as to trade channels or classes of purchasers in any of the cited registrations or the involved application, the Board presumed that the goods are provided in the same trade channels and are offered to the same classes of purchasers. And so, the third DuPont factor also weighed "heavily" in favor of finding a likelihood of confusion.

Strength of the Cited Marks: Genuine Risk argued that the term "GOOD TIMES" is suggestive and inherently weak and diluted when used in connection with the goods listed in the cited registrations because it is "suggestive of the merriment consumers anticipate enjoying when imbibing alcoholic beverages." The Board agreed.

We find that the cited GOOD TIMES-formative marks themselves, each of which is combined with other terms and each of which covers one or more pertinent alcoholic beverages, show that marks containing the term GOOD TIMES for alcoholic beverages can be distinguished by additional matter and/or the differing connotations conveyed in light of the conceptual weakness of the “GOOD TIMES” element.

Genuine Risk did not submit any evidence of third-party use of marks identical or similar to the cited marks, and third-party registrations alone do not establish weakness in the marketplace. However, the registration evidence did show that "use of the wording GOOD TIMES in marks used in connection with alcoholic beverages has a commonly understood suggestive meaning and, therefore, this component of the cited marks is conceptually weak."

In light of its conceptual weakness, the GOOD TIMES component of each of the cited marks is entitled to only a limited scope of protection. Accordingly, the sixth DuPont factor favored a finding that confusion is not likely.

Comparing the Marks: The Board found that the cited marks and the mark GOOD TIMES "are somewhat similar visually and aurally in light of the shared wording GOOD TIMES. However, the similarity of the marks ends there." Bearing in mind that the wording GOOD TIMES is conceptually weak, the Board found that the cited marks "have differing connotations and overall commercial impressions when compared to Applicant’s mark."

Indeed, the structure and distinctive sentiments expressed in each of the cited marks are absent from Applicant’s mark. For example, the cited mark GUARD THE GOOD TIMES connotes protecting the good times one is experiencing. Further, the cited mark LET THE GOOD TIMES ROLL suggests that one should keep on having a good time. These connotations and commercial impressions are not present in Applicant’s mark. Moreover, given that the cited marks use “GOOD TIMES” as part of an overall distinctive phrase, we find it unlikely that consumers will view Applicant’s mark as a shortened form of any of the cited marks.

In sum, the Board found that the involved marks are "sufficiently dissimilar in structure, meaning and overall commercial impression, notwithstanding any similarities in sound and appearance due to the shared wording GOOD TIMES." Therefore, the first DuPont factor favored a finding that confusion is not likely.

Conclusion: The Board deemed the first and sixth DuPont factors to be "pivotal" and to outweigh the legal identity of the goods under the second DuPont factor, as well as the presumed identical trade channels and classes of purchasers under the third DuPont factor.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: Good times for Genuine Risk! Would consumers think that one or two of the registered marks are slogans used by Genuine Risk: for example, LET THE GOOD TIME ROLL?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.

United TM Holdings Files Opposition to Petition for Certiorari in RAPUNZEL Consumer Standing Case.

Applicant/Appellee/Respondent United Trademark Holdings, Inc. has filed a Brief in Opposition [pdf here] to Professor Rebecca Curtin's Petition for a Writ of Certiorari [here], now pending before the Supreme Court in the RAPUNZEL trademark opposition.

You will recall that the CAFC affirmed the Board's holding that "only commercial actors affected by the mark’s registration fall within the zone of interests to oppose the registration as generic, descriptive, or [failing to function as a trademark]," and it upheld the Board's dismissal of mere consumer Curtin's opposition to registration of the mark RAPUNZEL for dolls and toy figures on the ground of lack of statutory standing. Curtin v. United Trademark Holdings, Inc., 2025 USPQ2d 784 (Fed. Cir. 2025) [precedential]. Two excerpts from the Preliminary Statement in UTH's Brief in Opposition are set out below:

The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (“Petition”) should be denied. The Federal Circuit’s unanimous decision faithfully applies the analytical framework this Court established in Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (2014), to determine whether Petitioner, a self-described consumer and not a competitor, falls within the class of persons Congress authorized to bring an opposition proceeding under the Lanham Act (the “Act”). The decision below creates no circuit split, conflicts with no precedent of this Court, and raises no question of national importance warranting the exercise of this Court’s certiorari jurisdiction. As noted, Petitioner is not a competitor of Respondent, but a law professor who has publicly promoted her role in this dispute, suggesting that her interest in appearing before this Court is principally academic rather than grounded in the vindication of a cognizable legal injury.

* * * * * * * *

Petitioner’s attempt to recast this case as presenting the question whether Article III standing requirements apply to administrative proceedings fundamentally mischaracterizes the decision below. The Federal Circuit did not impose constitutional standing requirements on the Board. It engaged in precisely the exercise this Court prescribed in Lexmark: interpreting the statutory text of 15 U.S.C. § 1063 to determine the class of persons Congress authorized to bring an opposition. That exercise in statutory construction is not only appropriate but required, regardless of the forum.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: Do you think the Court will grant the petition? BTW: that doll looks like Paige Bueckers to me.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.

TTAB Requires Disclaimer of "MADE BY DENTISTS" in Five Word-and-Design Marks for Toothbrushes and the Like

The Board affirmed the USPTO's refusal of the mark shown immediately below, along with four other similar word-plus-design marks (same font and wording, different cartoon designs) for mouthwash, teeth-whitening products, dental cleaning tools, toothbrushes, and the like, absent a disclaimer of the phrase MADE BY DENTISTS. Spotlight argued that the products are not made by dentists, and therefore "imagination, thought, and perception" is required "to reach a conclusion as to the nature of the goods recited in the Application." In other words, according to Spotlight, the phrase is merely suggestive. Not so, said the Board. In re Spotlight Oral Care Limited, Serial Nos. 79380381 et al. (March 19, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge David K. Heasley).

Examining Attorney Jesse Nelman maintained that "MADE BY DENTISTS" immediately conveys to consumers a feature or characteristic of the goods - that they are designed by dentists, since Spotlight is owned by dentists. Spotlight, pointing to dictionary definitions, asserted that "MADE" means "artificially produced" or "put together of various ingredients," and "BY" means "through or through the medium of" or "through the agency or instrumentality of." In other words, the goods are not made by dentists - "they are not put together, manufactured, constructed, shaped, or formed by dentists."

The Board rejected Spotlight's narrow definition of "made," pointing out that "made" can also mean "more generally, '[p]roduced or created artificially' or '[h]aving been invented,' or '[t]o cause to exist or happen; bring about; create.'" Moreover, the word should be understood "in relation to the goods or services for which registration is sought, the context in which the mark is used, and the possible significance that the mark is likely to have to the average purchaser encountering the goods or services in the marketplace."

Here, if “MADE” means “[t]o cause to exist or happen; bring about; create,” then “MADE BY DENTISTS,” considered in its entirety and in the context of dental goods such as toothpaste, mouthwash and toothbrushes, comprehends the contributions made by the dentists who founded Applicant, provided the designs, specified the ingredients, and directed how the ingredients were to be put together into the dental goods. *** In that sense, the dentists “MADE” the dental goods in the same sense that Henry Ford “made” the Model T, even if he didn’t assemble the cars by hand.

The evidence showed that others in the dental field use the phrase "made by dentists" to describe their products. Furthermore, "[i]t is well-established that a term which describes the provider of goods or services is also merely descriptive of those goods and services.” In re Major League Umpires, No. 75154506, 2001 WL 777067, *2 (TTAB 2001) (protective vest was invented by one of the owner/umpires).

Spotlight submitted some two hundred registrations and allowed applications containing “MADE BY _____” without disclaimers: e.g., MADE BY TWO HAIRY GUYS for wax for removing hair; MADE BY FIREMEN FOR FIREMEN for fire-fighting equipment [FIREMEN disclaimed]. The Board, however, found that evidence of little probative value. Most of the marks did not refer to any purveyor or designer of the goods and others did not identify a type of professional or entity. "Thus, most of Applicant’s registered third-party marks do not indicate the provenance and characteristics of their identified goods."

The remaining registrations were "too few in number and result from the decisions of other examining attorneys, not the Board." "[P]rior decisions and actions of other examining attorneys in registering other marks have little evidentiary value and are not binding on the USPTO or the Board."

[W]e have no doubt that consumers who see the term MADE BY DENTISTS in Applicant’s marks, used on the identified goods, would immediately understand a significant characteristic is that the goods are designed and provided by dentists. The definitions of the words MADE and BY show their descriptiveness in this context, and as the above evidence makes clear, the combination of MADE BY and DENTISTS indicates skilled professional providers of the goods.

And so, the Board upheld the disclaimer requirement, allowing Spotlight thirty-days within which to submit the required disclaimer, in which case the applications will be passed to publication.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: Looks like the Board brushed off Spotlight's oral argument.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.