Differences in Goods/Services Yield Dismissal of MISS BUSINESS/MS. BUSINESS Section 2(d) Opposition

The Board dismissed this Section 2(d) opposition to registration of the mark MISS BUSINESS for books and stationery, denying Opposer's claim of likelihood of confusion with her registered mark MS. BUSINESS for a variety of business consulting and financial services. Unsurprisingly, the Board found the marks to be "highly similar," but Opposer failed to prove that the involved goods and services are related. Shaquanna Brooks v. Miss Business LLC, Opposition No. 91287370 (August 18, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge David K. Heasley).

"There is a dearth of evidence in this record. That dearth, however, does not disadvantage the parties equally, as Opposer, not Applicant, bears the burden of proof." Opposer Brooks argued that Applicant's goods are with the natural zone of expansion for her services, that the goods are "naturally complementary to Opposer’s business consulting and financial services," and that "Opposer regularly uses branded print materials in the course of providing services, and consumers are likely to encounter educational or inspirational materials as an extension of a brand in the entrepreneurial and financial coaching space."

None of these assertions is proven with evidence. Evidence of relatedness could include such things as news articles showing that the relevant goods and services are used together; webpages showing that they are advertised or sold by the same source; or copies of prior use-based registrations of the same mark for Applicant’s goods and Opposer’s services. See, e.g., L’Oreal S.A. v. Marcon, 2012 WL 1267956, *7 (TTAB 2012). But in this case, the record contains no such evidence.

At most, the involved goods and services are both in the general field of business, but that is not enough to show that they are related under Section 2(d). "It is error to deny registration simply because 'applicant sells some of its goods in some of the same fields in which opposer provides its services ....'"

Opposer Brooks asserted that the goods and services travel through the same trade channels, but her arguments depended on a showing that they are related, a showing she failed to make. Her claim that the goods and services both are found in common online spaces such as Instagram "proves nothing." "Advertising on the Internet is ubiquitous and proves little, if anything, about the likelihood that consumers will confuse similar marks used on such goods or services."

Although the involved goods and service appeal to a broad class of potential customers in the general field of business, "the breadth of that field, and the ubiquitous nature of online marketing, do nothing to predispose those customers to perceive those goods and services as emanating from the same source."

Deeming the second DuPont factor to be dispositive, the Board dismissed the opposition.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: The parties' attempt to submit evidence were laughingly bad: unsigned declarations, a signed declaration without a verification under penalty of perjury, and their own discovery responses. Will opposer seek review by way of civil action, where additional evidence can be submitted?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.