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.

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.

Ultimately, this decision reminds trademark owners that even identical marks are not enough to win a Section 2(d) claim without evidence showing the real-world relationship between the goods or services. The Board emphasized that each case rests on its own record and that assumptions about what “might” be related won’t suffice. This decision underscores several important trademark law doctrines, including the related goods doctrine, the natural zone of expansion, and how third-party evidence is weighed in establishing relatedness.

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.

The central aspect of this case revolved around the “something more” standard, which requires additional evidence to establish the relatedness of goods and services beyond merely showing that similar marks are used. Specifically, the “something more” standard necessitates proof that consumers would likely believe that the goods (wine) and services (restaurant and bar services) come from the same source.

The primary issue in this case was whether the dominant feature of Covalinski’s mark “REDNECK RACEGIRL” would likely cause confusion with the pre-existing “RACEGIRL” mark. The Examining Attorney contended that the dominant feature in both marks was the word “RACEGIRL,” and since the goods were identical or closely related, there was a likelihood of confusion among consumers.