TTABlog Test: Is CERTIFIED SUGAR DADDY Merely Descriptive of Dating Software and Services?

The USPTO refused to register the proposed mark CERTIFIED SUGAR DADDY, finding it merely descriptive of social introduction and dating software and services, under Section 2(e)(1). Applicant argued that SUGAR DADDY is a colloquial phrase that has no defined meaning, and that applicant does not certify any customer information, but instead verifies certain information, including income, for some its consumers. How do you think this appeal, argued on December 10th, came out? In re SuccessfulMatch.com, Inc., Serial No. 97354248 (December 20, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge George C. Pologeorgis).

The Examining Attorney relied on dictionary definitions of CERTIFIED (“to confirm formally as true, accurate, or genuine”) and SUGAR DADDY (“a wealthy, usually older man who gives money or gifts to a younger person in return for sexual favors or companionship"), as well as excerpts from applicant's website stating that users seeking a specific type of romantic or companionship relationship may have their income "certified." The website also indicates that a “Certified Sugar Daddy” badge may be added to a qualified user's profile page.

The record also included a copy of applicant's registration for the mark CERTIFIED MILLIONAIRE for the same services, obtained under Section 2(f) and thus constituting an admission that the word CERTIFIED is not inherently distinctive. In light of the similar structure of that mark to the instant mark, that registration demonstrates that CERTIFIED is not inherently distinctive in this case.

As to applicant's argument regarding verification rather than certification, the Board was unmoved. "We find that the words 'certify' and 'verify' are synonymous terms evoking very similar, if not identical, connotations and overall commercial impressions."

With respect to the term SUGAR DADDY, applicant ignored the dictionary definition, which does not label the term as colloquial. Moreover, third-party websites use the term in connection with their dating services, and applicant calls itself "the No. 1 sugar daddy dating brand."

Considering the proposed mark as a whole, the combination of the terms is merely descriptive because it "immediately conveys information about specific users."

These users are seeking or offering a specific type of relationship, referred to as a “sugar” relationship. Going through Applicant’s verification or “certification” process increases the user’s likelihood of successfully using Applicant’s services and software to identify other individuals interested in finding or becoming a “sugar daddy."

Applicant alternatively argued, without success, that the term SUGAR DADDY has acquired distinctiveness. According to the Board, "Applicant’s burden is heavy because it bases its application on intent to use, not actual use of its proposed mark." [Why should that make the burden heavier? -ed.].

First, applicant claimed transferred distinctiveness for CERTIFIED SUGAR DADDY from its registration for the mark SUGARDADDYMEET under Rule 2.41(b). The Board, however, found that the marks cannot be considered "the same" due to their different connotations, and so the desired transfer was not in the cards.

Next, applicant asserted that it has used the mark SUGARDADDYMEET and the term SUGAR DADDY since 2007, but it failed to submit any declaration or affidavit attesting to the exclusivity of use or the extent of time the terms have been used. The statement of the dates of use in the SUGARDADDYMEET registration did not constitute competent evidence. [The third-party uses also undermine applicant's 2(f) claim. -ed.]

And so, the Board affirmed the Section 2(e)(1) refusal.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: Should this be certified as a WYHA? BTW: What Florida-based sugar daddy has been in the news this week?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2024.