TTABlog Test: Is KINGS ARMOR Confusable with UNDER ARMOUR for Clothing?
Under Armour petitioned to cancel a registration for the mark KINGS ARMOR for various items of clothing, claiming a likelihood of confusion with its registered mark UNDER ARMOUR for overlapping products. Registrant Valiant Praize, appearing pro se, started out behind the 8-ball (or maybe under the 8-ball), since the goods are in-part identical and presumably travel through the same channels of trade to the same classes of consumers. But what about the marks? Are they confusable? Under Armour, Inc. v. Valiant Praize Productions LLC, Cancellation No. 92082443 (March 26, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Robert H. Coggins).
"In view of the identity of the goods, and the presumed identity of the trade channels and classes of consumers, the second, third, and part of the fourth DuPont factors weigh heavily in favor of a conclusion of a likelihood of confusion." [Emphasis added].
"Because the UNDER ARMOUR mark is conceptually strong and commercially very strong, it is entitled to a broad scope of protection and so the fifth DuPont factor also weighs heavily in favor of a conclusion of a likelihood of confusion." [Emphasis added].
"[B]ecause the goods are in-part identical, and Petitioner’s mark is strong, the degree of similarity between the parties’ marks required to support a conclusion of likelihood of confusion decreases."
Respondent did not supply any sales figures for its goods, so the absence of evidence of actual confusion was not meaningful because there was no proof that there had been a reasonable opportunity for confusion to occur.
But what about the marks? The Board found the words ARMOR and ARMOUR to be the dominant element of the respective marks. "The respective first terms UNDER and KINGS modify and draw attention to the word ARMO(U)R, thus reinforcing the significance of that term." [I'm not buying that - ed.]
"In the context of identical types of clothing, the addition of UNDER to ARMOUR connotes a defensive covering beneath a layer of clothing, while the addition of KINGS to ARMOR connotes a defensive covering worn by or on behalf of a sovereign. Both marks imply defensive coverings worn in battle." [Really? in the context of the goods? - ed.]
The Board found the marks to be more similar than dissimilar in terms of appearance, sound, and commercial impression.
Concluding that confusion is likely, the Board granted the petition for cancellation.
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlogger comment: Do you think the marks are confusable? What do you think a survey would have shown? Do you think UA could win on an infringement claim in court?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.
posted by John L. Welch @ 3/28/2025
5 comments
5 Comments:
UA would lose in court. It's a fact that the bar for likelihood of confusion at the TTAB is light years below the bar in a court of law. Part of the reason is due to the limited factors considered by the TTAB but I think it's much more than that. The TTAB simply has a much lower opinion of the average consumer in terms of their proclivity for being confused.
I would appeal this decision. There are at least 25 registrations for AMOUR-formative marks currently coexisting on the Register. They should have been raised.
So Under Armor can block all registrations for clothing including the word ARMOR, even though the registered mark is UNDER ARMOR? Seems like that is the effect.
Just based on your summary, I agree with the other comments that confusion is unlikely. I don't think that ARMOUR is the "dominant" part of the mark but that, in this case, the mark's renown is because of the 2-word mark Under Armour. King's Armor has different sound, appearance and meaning. Petitioner was probably aided by the fact that respondent was pro se. Pretty clearly, no likelihood of confusion.
No chance of likelihood of confusion in the real world or in an Article 3 court. TTAB practice is a world of make pretend.
Post a Comment
<< Home