A recent TTAB decision shows that clothing and entertainment services may be related for trademark purposes, even when they are not directly competitive. This article explains how the Board analyzes relatedness, why small wording changes may not avoid confusion, and what brand owners should consider before adopting or expanding a trademark.

A well-drafted consent agreement can be one of the most effective tools for resolving a likelihood-of-confusion refusal under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act. In many cases, it works because the parties closest to the marketplace—the applicant and the cited registrant—often do have the best understanding of how consumers encounter their brands in real life. But weak consent agreements often fail.

A “crowded field” argument is a practical way to overcome a USPTO refusal under Section 2(d) for likelihood of confusion. The core idea is simple: in some markets, many businesses already use similar wording for similar goods or services. Used well, this argument aligns with the du Pont factors and can clear a path to registration. Used loosely—or without evidence—it falls flat and may also narrow the strength of your own rights going forward.

Are Personal Training Services Related to Clothing for Trademark Purposes? As more fitness-focused ecommerce brands expand into branded apparel and digital content, trademark applicants often find themselves navigating complex questions about whether their goods and services are “related” for purposes of trademark registration.

This case is a reminder that trademark law doesn’t require two products to be the same—or even competitive—for confusion in the marketplace to occur. It’s enough if the products are related in a way that creates a plausible impression of common origin in the mind of the consumer. In other words, relatedness isn’t just about the products themselves—it’s about how, where, and to whom they are sold.

In March 2025, a high-profile trademark dispute erupted in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, pitting famed surf and lifestyle brand Lost International, LLC (“Lost”) against international music icon Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta, professionally known as Lady Gaga. At the center of the controversy is the word “Mayhem” — a trademark Lost [...]

Trademark abandonment and the loss of rights for non-use serve as critical reminders that trademarks are not "set it and forget it" assets. They require ongoing use and vigilant protection to retain their value and legal standing. By understanding the factors that lead to abandonment and taking proactive steps to maintain continuous use, trademark owners can avoid losing their valuable trademark rights. Regular monitoring, documentation, and enforcement are essential components of a strong trademark strategy, ensuring that your brand identity remains protected and enforceable in the marketplace.

In the case of In re Princeton Tectonics, Inc., the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) addressed whether the trademark "EPIC" for personal headlamps would likely cause confusion with an existing trademark "EPIC" for electric lighting fixtures. The United States Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) Trademark Examining Attorney initially refused the registration of "EPIC" for personal headlamps under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, arguing that the identical nature of the marks would likely lead to confusion among consumers, given the potential relatedness of the goods. Princeton Tectonics, Inc. appealed this decision to the TTAB.

The primary issue in this case was whether "PRECISION CONVERTING" had acquired distinctiveness. Under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act, a mark that is merely descriptive of the goods or services can be registered on the Principal Register if it has become distinctive of the applicant’s goods or services in commerce. Acquired distinctiveness, or secondary meaning, occurs when the primary significance of the term in the minds of the consuming public is not the product but the producer.

In the case of In re Peace Love World Live, LLC (Serial No. 86705287), the TTAB addressed whether the trademark “I LOVE YOU” for bracelets would likely cause confusion with the pre-existing trademark “I LUV U” for jewelry, including necklaces, bracelets, rings, charms, pendants, and earrings.