TTABlog Test? Is ELEMENTAL BEAUTY for Skincare Products Confusable with BEAUTY IS ELEMENTAL for Nutritional Supplements?

The USPTO refused to register the mark ELEMENTAL BEAUTY for "professional non-medicated skincare preparations" [BEAUTY disclaimed], finding confusion likely with the registered mark BEAUTY IS ELEMENTAL for "nutritional supplements." Applicant Circadia argued that the marks have different connotations, that ELEMENTAL dominates its mark while BEAUTY is the focus of cited mark, and that the goods are unrelated due to inherent differences in their nature and function. How do you think this came out? In re Circadia by Dr. Pugliese, Inc., Serial No. 98199159 (September 5, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Catherine Dugan O'Connor).

The Marks Circadia maintained that ELEMENTAL BEAUTY "evokes a natural, elemental aesthetic, suggesting purity and simplicity in skincare—a concept tailored to topical beauty products. BEAUTY IS ELEMENTAL, as a declarative slogan, asserts that beauty is inherently fundamental, projecting a philosophical or health-focused message suited to ingestible supplements. These divergent connotations create entirely different commercial impressions, particularly when tied to their respective goods." The Board was unimpressed: "Here, the terms ELEMENTAL and BEAUTY do not convey such clearly different connotations when applied to the parties’ involved goods."

As to Circadia's "dominance" argument, the Board observed that it must consider Circadia's mark in its entirety. "Use of the word BEAUTY in Applicant’s mark—even if disclaimed—only adds to the similarity of the marks." Moreover, "[c]onsumers are unlikely to notice the 'nuanced linguistic difference' that Applicant asserts exist between the marks." "[B]oth marks convey the idea of beauty having an elemental quality or characteristic and create similar commercial impressions, which are not changed by the different structures or the additional word IS."

Comparing the marks in their entireties, we find that they are similar in appearance, sound, connotation and overall commercial impression, with the first DuPont factor weighing in favor of a likelihood of confusion.

The Goods: Examining Attorney Elaine Xu submitted Internet evidence of more than a dozen third parties offering both skincare preparations and nutritional supplements under the same mark and on the same website, as well as sixteen use-based third-party registrations covering both non-medicated skincare preparations and nutritional supplements

As to Circadia's argument about the fundamental differences between the products, the Board pointed out that the evidence "includes multiple examples of brands offering both skincare products and supplements, with the latter often promoted specifically for their potential benefits to the skin." Several of the third-party supplements have the word "skin" in their name.

Such evidence supports a finding that consumers seek both Applicant’s and Registrant’s goods for the same purpose, to improve and care for their skin. Indeed, at least two of the companies that offer skincare preparations and nutritional supplements promote the goods for use as part of a coordinated regimen of skincare, providing further support for a finding that the goods are complementary and related.

Other factors: Circadia argued that the relevant consumers "are highly sophisticated, exercising significant care in their purchases," but it provided no evidence in support of that assertion. The Board found that "[o]rdinary consumers of both Applicant’s and Registrant’s identified goods may exercise different degrees of care in purchasing the goods, and we 'must make our determination based on the least sophisticated consumer.'"

Circadia pointed to the lack of evidence of actual confusion, but the Board pointed out that the subject application is based on intent to use and Circadia made of record no evidence of concurrent use of the involved marks.

And so, the Board affirmed the refusal to register.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: How did you do?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.