Weakness of "MANE" for Hair Products Yields Dismissal: MAIN ESTEEM Not Confusable with MANE 'N TAIL

The Board dismissed this opposition to registration of the mark MANE ESTEEM for hair care products and hair salon services [MANE disclaimed], finding confusion unlikely with the registered mark MANE 'N TAIL for hair care products for humans and domestic animals. The weakness of the term "MANE" as a formative, coupled with the dissimilarities in the marks, led to the Board's conclusion. Straight Arrow Products, Inc. v. Willette Manigault and Mane Esteem, LLC, Opposition No. 91266129 (September 25, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Elizabeth K. Brock).

Goods and Services: The Board found that the involved goods overlap. Presumably, the overlapping goods travel through the same trade channels to the same classes of consumers. Furthermore, hair care products are relatively inexpensive and subject to impulse purchase. The Board therefore found that the second, third, and fourth DuPont factors weighed in favor of Opposer Straight Arrow.

As to applicant's services, the Board observed that there is "an inherent relationship" between hair care products and applicant’s "hair styling, hair care services, advice relating to hair care, and providing advice and information in the fields of hairstyling, haircare, and hair maintenance." Moreover, hair care products are sold and used in hair salons. Since there are no limitation in the opposed service application or in the pleaded registration, the Board assumed that the involved goods and services are available to all the usual purchasers for same. And so, the Board again found that the second, third, and fourth DuPont factors weighed in favor of a likelihood of confusion.

Strength of Opposer's Mark: Dictionary evidence established that the disclaimed word MANE in applicant’s mark can mean both “[t]he long hair along the top and sides of the neck of certain mammals, such as a horse or male lion,” and also “[a] long thick growth of hair on a person’s head.” And so, the Board concluded that MANE is descriptive of a characteristic of applicant's hair care products and services. Opposer Straight Arrow acknowledged that in its mark, MANE has the same connotation: “[a] long thick growth of hair on a person’s head,” i.e., hair.

We find that the mark MANE 'N TAIL in Opposer’s’880 Registration is at least suggestive as a whole, but based on the evidence and arguments of record, the MANE component in Opposer’s mark is descriptive and thus conceptually weak.

As to commercial strength, Straight Arrow claimed gross sales in 2019 and 2020 in the tens of millions of dollars, but its sales documents failed to show use of the registered mark. The Board was unable to ascertain the "scope or effectiveness" of Straight Arrow's marketing efforts, "such as the size of the viewing market and what percentage of particular product categories are occupied by Opposer."Straight Arrow's magazine references similarly lacked circulation data and its product placement evidence lacked relevant contextual information.

Opposer’s mark may have acquired some degree of brand recognition strength, but on this record, there are too many deficiencies in Opposer’s evidence that preclude us from finding that the MANE 'N TAIL mark is entitled to an expanded scope of protection under the fifth DuPont factor for Opposer’s hair care products.

Turning to the sixth DuPont factor, applicant submitted 26 examples of the term MANE used in connection with a hair care product or services. The Board found that this evidence "significantly limits the scope of protection for the MANE term in Opposer’s mark."

[W]e find that the MANE portion of Opposer’s mark is so conceptually or inherently weak and diluted by third party use that it will not act as a bar to the registration of every mark that includes the word MANE. “[I]t will only bar the registration of marks as to which the resemblance to [MANE 'N TAIL] is striking enough to cause one seeing it to assume that there is some connection, association or sponsorship between the two.”

The Marks: Straight Arrow contended that MANE is the dominant term in both marks, but the Board disagreed. "Given the descriptive nature of MANE in Applicant’s mark, the term ESTEEM gives Applicant’s mark its overall meaning of 'hair confidence.' Applicant’s mark suggests feeling confident about one’s hair. This meaning is not present in Opposer’s mark."

Taking into account the appropriate degree of strength of Opposer’s mark, including the weakness of the only shared component with Applicant's mark (i.e., MANE), and in view of these significant differences in connotation and commercial impression, along with the differences in sight and sound, we find that the marks as a whole are dissimilar.

Conclusion: The Board concluded that the dissimilarity of the marks in sound, appearance, connotation, and commercial impression, coupled with the conceptual and commercial weakness of the term MANE, outweighed the other DuPont factors. And so, it dismissed the opposition.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: Straight Arrow goes after a lot of MANE marks. This decision may put a crimp in its (hair)style.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.