TTAB Reverses USPTO's Section 2(d) Refusal of PBE AWARDS & Design for Marketing Award Services

The Board tossed out the USPTO's refusal to register the mark PBE AWARDS & Design (shown first below) for "Educational services, namely, providing incentives to students to demonstrate excellence in the field of marketing and product packaging design through the issuance of awards; Providing recognition and incentives by the way of awards and contests to demonstrate excellence in the field of marketing and product packaging design" [AWARDS disclaimed], finding confusion unlikely with the registered mark PBE PROJECT BEAUTY EXPO (Stylized), shown second below, for "Providing a forum for companies to showcase, display, demonstrate and promote new and innovative ideas, products and services in the convention/meeting management arena" [PROJECT BEAUTY EXPO disclaimed]. In re The Spearhead Group, Inc., Serial No. 97891908 (January 24, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christopher C. Larkin).

The Marks: The Board found the marks to be "more dissimilar than similar when considered in their entireties." The Examining Attorney contended that the initialism PBE dominates both marks, but the Board disagreed.

We find that a consumer with a general rather than specific impression of the cited mark is just as likely, if not more likely, to remember the words PROJECT BEAUTY EXPO than just the background letters PBE alone. Accordingly, in the required comparison of the marks in their entireties, we will give as much weight to the words PROJECT BEAUTY EXPO as to their abbreviation PBE.

As to appearance, "the marks share the letters PBE, but otherwise bear little or no resemblance to one another, even assuming that Applicant’s mark is depicted in the pink, white, and gray colors shown and claimed in the cited registration." As to sound, "the marks will sound much more dissimilar than similar if they are verbalized in their entireties." As to meaning, it is unlikely that a consumer would understand the letters PBE in Applicant’s mark to mean PROJECT BEAUTY EXPO.

The Services: The Board began by noting that the services in the cited registration are limited to "the convention/meeting management arena" while the two services identified in the subject application are limited to "the field of marketing and product design." "[T]here is nothing on the faces of the identifications to suggest that the services are intrinsically related."

The Internet webpages cited by the Examining Attorney did not show the offering of services that fall within both sets of identifications. "[T]he Examining Attorney repeatedly claims that these websites show that the same businesses provide awards for excellence in marketing and a forum to showcase new marketing ideas. “That is not the issue.” OSF Healthcare Servs., 2023 WL 6140427, at *12." The Board pointed out that it must determine whether the services recited in the application are related to the specific services of the registration.

The Examining Attorney effectively broadened and generalized [those] identification[s] of services and submitted evidence addressed to the broader identification[s], not the actual one[s].” Id. The Examining Attorney provided no evidence that the types of services identified in the application and in the cited registration originate from the same source, or would be perceived as originating from the same source under the same mark.

Conclusion: And so, the Board reversed the refusal.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: I think that if applicant's mark were in the same pink and gray colors as the cited mark (under the "nose-of-wax" approach), the first DuPont factor might favor the USPTO. 

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.