TTABlog Test: Is CLEANFACE Confusable with DR.BELMEUR CLEAN FACE for Beauty Products?

The USPTO refused to register the mark CLEANFACE for "Beauty serums," finding confusion likely with the registered mark DR.BELMEUR CLEAN FACE (with the first two words displayed above the second two) for, inter alia, beauty masks [CLEAN FACE disclaimed]. The Board found the goods to be related, but what about the marks? How do you think this came out? In re Sorrentino, Serial No. 97256728 (February 28, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cheryl S. Goodman).

The Board took judicial notice of the definition of "serum" as "a usually lightweight cosmetic preparation especially for use on the face specifically: a typically water-based, often concentrated preparation that lacks lubricating and thickening agents an antiaging facial serum." It also took judicial notice of "mask" as "a cosmetic preparation for the skin of the face that produces a tightening effect as it dries." Third-party website evidence showing both products offered by various entities convinced the Board that the goods are related. The same evidence indicated that the goods are offered through the same trade channels to the general public.

Third-party registration evidence, most with "face" and "clean" disclaimed, along with dictionary definitions of "clean" and "face" [judicial notice again], led the Board to find that CLEAN FACE is conceptually weak, and so "the strength of the cited mark is somewhat limited by the disclaimed terms CLEAN FACE." There was no third-party evidence that would bear on the commercial strength of the cited mark.

As to the marks, the Board noted their dissimilarities in terms of appearance, sound and meaning. The examining attorney contended that the addition of registrant’s house mark to the word CLEAN FACE does not avoid a likelihood of confusion. The Board, however, pointed out that:

where there are some recognizable differences in the asserted conflicting product marks or the product marks in question are highly suggestive or merely descriptive or play upon commonly used or registered terms, the addition of a house mark and/or other material to the assertedly conflicting product mark has been determined sufficient to render the marks as a whole sufficiently distinguishable.

The Board observed that the disclaimed term CLEAN FACE "contributes less to the mark’s commercial impression than does the house mark DR.BELMEUR due to the descriptiveness of CLEAN FACE."

We find that Registrant’s addition of its house mark DR.BELMEUR suffices to distinguish Applicant’s and Registrant’s marks when they are viewed in their entireties and that based on Registrant’s disclaimer of CLEAN FACE, the dictionary definitions, and third-party registration evidence, purchasers are able to distinguish between Applicant’s and Registrant’s marks.

The Board then found the first DuPont factor dispositive and it reversed the refusal.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: CLEANFACE is not merely descriptive?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.