In A "Crowded" Field For A Specific Term, Usually The Addition Of A Unique Term Will Be Sufficient To Secure A Trademark Registration.

LR
Lewis Roca

Contributor

Lewis Roca logo
Lewis Roca serves clients around the world in complex litigation, intellectual property, business transactions, labor and employment, regulatory counseling, and government relations.  With legal excellence and exceptional client service, we pride ourselves on our ability to win for our clients while serving their highest goals and needs.   
Applicant applied to register SNOW BY REPUBLIC for clothing. The TTAB approved the registration this mark despite the existence of the following trademark registration for similar clothing items: ..
United States Intellectual Property
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Applicant applied to register SNOW BY REPUBLIC for clothing.  The TTAB approved the registration this mark despite the existence of the following trademark registration for similar clothing items:

In reaching its decision, the TTAB discusses two interesting tenets of trademark law.

FIRST.  A "crowed" field is often used to describe a situation where a common term, in this case "snow," has been incorporated into numerous trademark registrations for clothes.  In this context, it is usually sufficient to add one additional unique term to the "crowded" field term when trying to secure a registration.  

Submitting unrelated third party registrations as evidence to establish a "crowded" field is the best way to do this.  While registrations are not evidence of use of the identified trademarks in the marketplace, the TTAB does view valid third-party registrations as evidence demonstrating that the addition of various unrelated terms to SNOW and/or variations of "snow" has been sufficient in the past for the USPTO to view the registered marks as sufficiently different from one another as not to cause a likelihood of confusion.  

SECOND.  While certainly not always sufficient, adding one's undisputed strong house trademark to a disputed sub-brand does tend to reduce the likelihood of confusion between the sub-brand and a cited registration similar to the sub-brand.  

In this case, REPUBLIC was the Applicant's house brand and SNOW was the disputed sub-brand.  Combining the terms to form SNOW BY REPUBLIC is almost always sufficient when the context of the sub-brand (i.e., "snow" in this case) is a "crowded" field.  
While not mentioned in this case, the addition of well-known house brand can reduce the likelihood of confusion even when the sub-brand is not in a "crowded" field, especially if the trademark is stylized, as opposed to a standard word mark.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More