Rejecting Strategic Partners Argument, TTAB Affirms 2d Refusal of IN HARMONY WITH NATURE for On-line Sale of Personal Care Products

The Board affirmed a Section 2(d) refusal to register the mark IN HARMONY WITH NATURE for "On-line retail store services featuring food supplements, nutritional supplements, household cleaning products, and personal care products," finding confusion likely with the registered mark CRAFTED WITH LOVE IN HARMONY WITH NATURE for various personal care products. Applicant Shaklee Corp. devoted most of its brief to its ownership of prior registrations of marks consisting of or containing the phrase IN HARMONY WITH NATURE and covering various goods and services, arguing that under Strategic Partners, registration should be allowed. The Board disagreed. In re Shaklee Corporation, Serial No. 98020872 (August 13, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christopher C. Larkin).

Goods and Services: The Board found it "self-evident" that the "personal care items" and "personal care product goods" of the '102 Registration are "intrinsically related" applicant's online retail store services featuring personal care products. That relatedness was corroborated by third-party use and registration evidence. The Board therefore found that the second DuPont factor supported a conclusion that confusion is likely.

That same evidence established that personal care products are sold in the same channels of trade in which the online retail store services featuring personal care products are rendered. Thus, the third DuPont factor also supported a conclusion that confusion is likely.

The Marks: Applicant argues that the phrase "CRAFTED IN LOVE" (sic) in the cited mark "is not only distinctive, but the most distinctive aspect of the Cited Mark" but "a highly distinguishing aspect of the Cited Mark in terms of commercial impression and connotation," particularly because it appears at the beginning of the cited mark. The Board was unmoved.

Applicant’s mark IN HARMONY WITH NATURE for use in connection with online retail store services featuring personal care products could readily be viewed as a shortened version of the cited mark CRAFTED WITH LOVE IN HARMONY WITH NATURE used for personal care products themselves.

Strategic Partners: Under the 13th DuPont factor, applicant invoked Strategic Partners [TTABlogged here], which involved the reversal of a Section 2(d) refusal in the "unique situation" presented by the coexistence of the applicant’s existing registration [for the mark ANYWEARS in standard form] with the cited registration [ANYWEAR BY JOSIE NATORI] for over five years, and applicant’s challenged mark [ANYWEARS in stylized form] was substantially similar to its existing registered mark, both for identical goods [footwear]."

The applicant here made of record its four registrations for marks “that were live when the Cited Registration was filed as an application on July 20, 2017, and when registered on July 23, 2019." However, only one covered the identical mark IN HARMONY WITH NATURE, and it was for educational services, not retail store services. The three other prior registrations covered marks - PRODUCTS IN HARMONY WITH NATURE AND GOOD HEALTH (two registrations) and PRODUCTS IN HARMONY WITH NATURE - that had "meaningful differences" from the mark IN HARMONY WITH NATURE alone. And so, Strategic Partners was inapplicable.

The exacting standard set forth in Strategic Partners has been applied in six subsequent precedential decisions, Embiid; In re Info. Builders Inc., Ser. No. 87753964, 2020 WL 2094122 (TTAB 2020); Country Oven; In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, Ser. No. 87075988, 2018 WL 2734893 (TTAB 2018); In re USA Warriors Ice Hockey Program, Inc., Ser. No. 86489116, 2017 WL 2572815 (TTAB 2017); and Allegiance Staffing [Ser. No. 85663950, 2015 WL 4658961 (TTAB 2015)], and the Board found that it was satisfied only in Allegiance Staffing, in which the applicant “owned a prior registration for the same mark and services for which it currently seeks registration” ... and which had inadvertently been allowed to expire.

Applicant also cited the Board's non-precedential decision in In re Semillas Fito, S.A., Ser. No. 79311562, 2025 WL 439975 (TTAB Jan. 21, 2025). [TTABlogged here], but there applicant's prior registrations covered goods that were identical to those identified in its application, and the marks shown in the prior registrations were very similar to the mark in the application. "The 'unique circumstances' presented in Semillas Fito ... do not exist here."

Conclusion: And so, the Board affirmed the refusal to register.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: In Semilas Fito, the Board gave the Strategic Partners doctrine a somewhat liberal interpretation.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.