Relatedness of Trademarked Goods: Clothing vs Entertainment
Trademark relatedness is often the issue that decides whether a trademark application moves forward or gets refused. Many business owners assume a conflict exists only when two companies sell the same product or offer the same service. In practice, that is not how the USPTO analyzes likelihood of confusion. The real question is often whether consumers are likely to believe that different goods or services come from the same source. A recent TTAB decision, In Running’ Behind, Inc., involving the trademarks FAMOUS FRIENDS and FAMOUS FRIEND is a useful example of how trademark relatedness works when one side sells clothing and the other offers entertainment services.
In that case, dated, April 23, 2026, the applicant sought to register FAMOUS FRIENDS for shirts and t-shirts. The cited registration covered FAMOUS FRIEND for entertainment services by a musical artist and producer, namely musical composition for others and production of musical sound recordings. The Board affirmed the Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion refusal, finding the trademarks highly similar and the goods and services sufficiently related for likelihood of confusion purposes. At the same time, the applicant did succeed on several specimen issues, including ornamentation, drawing mismatch, and digitally altered specimen arguments.
For brand owners, this case matters because it shows how trademark relatedness can extend beyond obvious competitors. A clothing brand may run into trouble not only with another apparel company, but also with a music brand, event brand, sports brand, or entertainment property if consumers are used to seeing those brands sell merchandise under the same trademark.
Why Trademark Relatedness Matters to Brand Owners
Trademark relatedness matters because modern brands do not stay confined to one lane. A business may begin as a performer, podcast, restaurant, software company, or media brand and later expand into apparel, drinkware, posters, accessories, or other promotional merchandise. Consumers have become accustomed to that kind of expansion. As a result, the USPTO often looks beyond whether the parties sell identical goods and instead asks whether buyers would expect the offerings to come from a single source.
That concept is especially important for growing companies. Imagine a business owner launching a new apparel line under a catchy phrase that seems available because no one else appears to be selling shirts under that name. A deeper search may reveal a musician, production company, or entertainment brand already using a highly similar trademark. Even though the earlier user is not in the clothing business in the traditional sense, trademark relatedness may still create a serious obstacle if branded merchandise is a natural extension of that entertainment brand.
That is exactly why this TTAB opinion is useful. It reminds applicants that trademark relatedness is shaped by real marketplace behavior, not just by neat product categories on paper.
The Marks Were Nearly Identical
Before the Board reached trademark relatedness, it first considered the trademarks themselves. The applicant argued that FAMOUS FRIENDS was meaningfully different from FAMOUS FRIEND because the plural “S” changed the commercial impression. The Board disagreed. It held that the difference between the singular and plural forms was not meaningful in a trademark sense. It also noted that consumers who noticed the slight variation could view the applicant’s trademark as simply a variation of the cited mark used for a companion product line.
That part of the opinion is a practical warning for brand owners. Small wording changes often feel more important in a conference room than they do in a trademark examination. A marketing team may believe that changing a singular word to plural creates a new brand identity. Trademark law often sees it differently. If the wording, sound, and overall impression remain substantially the same, that small tweak may do very little to reduce risk.
A simple hypothetical shows the problem. Suppose one company owns BRIGHT CREATOR for media production services and another business later applies for BRIGHT CREATORS for shirts. The second business may feel confident because the trademark sounds more communal and group-oriented. But the USPTO may still view the later trademark as just a slight variation. When the trademarks are this close, trademark relatedness becomes even more important.
How the Board Analyzed Trademark Relatedness
The most important part of the decision was the Board’s analysis of trademark relatedness. Shirts and music production services are not directly competitive. One is a tangible product and the other is a service. But direct competition is not required. The Board explained that goods and services may still be related when consumers are accustomed to seeing them offered under the same trademark. Here, it found that clothing and the identified entertainment services were sufficiently related in the modern marketplace.
That conclusion was driven by evidence. The examining attorney submitted twenty use-based third-party registrations showing the same trademark used for both apparel and music-related services. The examples included AUSTIN CITY LIMITS, KELLY CLARKSON, BARRY MANILOW, PLANTWAVE, 808 MAFIA, ENUMCLAW, THE BAR-KAYS, and QUASIMOTO. The record also included internet evidence showing music-related brands selling shirts under the same names, including RED HOT CHILI PEPPERS, PRINCE, GEORGE CLINTON, PETE ROCK, MARK RONSON, TIMBALAND, and BABYFACE. The Board found that this record supported a finding of trademark relatedness between the clothing goods and the entertainment services.
That is a significant point for brand owners. The Board was not saying that all clothing is related to all entertainment services. It was saying that, in this record, consumers are used to seeing music brands extend into shirts and similar merchandise. Because that pattern is commercially familiar, the gap between the goods and services became much narrower.
Why Clothing and Entertainment Services Can Be Related
For many businesses, the idea of trademark relatedness between clothing and entertainment services may seem overly broad at first. But the marketplace tells a different story. Musicians, performers, production brands, festivals, and media personalities routinely sell t-shirts, hats, hoodies, and other merchandise under the same trademark used for entertainment offerings. Consumers often view those goods as official extensions of the same brand.
Think about how this plays out in everyday life. A fan attends a concert and buys a t-shirt bearing the artist’s name. The fan does not usually assume the shirt comes from an unrelated third party. The natural assumption is that the shirt is connected to the performer, the tour, or the underlying entertainment brand. The same logic applies to podcasts selling merch, sports brands selling apparel, or festivals offering clothing under the event name.
Now consider a hypothetical outside music. Suppose a fast-growing podcast called CITY TABLE builds a following and later sells hats and shirts online. If an unrelated clothing company tries to register CITY TABLE for apparel, the earlier entertainment or media brand may pose a real obstacle. Trademark relatedness exists because consumers increasingly expect successful content brands to expand into merchandise.
Why the Applicant’s Arguments Failed
The applicant tried to argue that its shirts were not related to the cited music production services and that the examining attorney’s third-party registration evidence was flawed because many of those registrations included multiple services. The Board rejected that argument. It explained that the third-party registrations still showed the same goods listed in the application and the same services listed in the cited registration appearing together under one trademark. That was enough to support trademark relatedness.
The applicant also submitted its own examples of identical trademarks registered by different entities for shirts on one side and music-related services on the other. But the Board was not persuaded. It held that the existence of some split ownership did not erase the examining attorney’s stronger evidence of common ownership and consumer expectation in the marketplace. In other words, a few coexistence examples do not necessarily defeat a broader pattern showing that buyers often encounter these goods and services under a single brand.
This is another important lesson for brand owners. In trademark disputes, isolated examples rarely decide the issue. The Board wants to know what the overall record suggests about consumer perception. If the weight of the evidence shows that people commonly see clothing and entertainment services marketed under one mark, trademark relatedness becomes easier for the USPTO to prove.
The Applicant Did Win the Specimen Issues
Even though the applicant lost on likelihood of confusion, it did score meaningful wins on the specimen issues. The Board reversed the ornamentation refusal, holding that the large and prominent use of FAMOUS FRIENDS on the shirt did not automatically prevent trademark significance. It found convincing evidence that FAMOUS FRIENDS served as a secondary source indicator because of its use in connection with a Chris Young song, tour, album-related materials, and other merchandise. The Board also noted that large-format wording across clothing is no longer automatically disqualifying in modern branding practice.
The Board also reversed the refusal that the specimen did not match the drawing. Although the online product listing described the item as a CHRIS YOUNG FAMOUS FRIENDS PHOTO TEE, the Board found that multiple trademarks can appear together on a product if each creates its own distinct commercial impression. On the shirt itself, FAMOUS FRIENDS appeared separately enough to support the drawing. The digitally altered specimen refusal was also reversed because the examining attorney did not adequately explain the refusal or request the additional information typically required.
These specimen rulings are helpful, but they do not change the larger outcome. The applicant overcame the technical specimen challenges and still lost because trademark relatedness and trademark similarity carried the day.
What Brand Owners Should Do Before Filing
The strongest lesson from this case is that clearance must be broader than many applicants expect. If you plan to launch a clothing brand, do not search only for other apparel trademarks. Look at entertainment services, sports and event brands, media brands, podcasts, influencers, and other businesses that commonly extend into merchandise.
Brand owners should also be careful about assuming small wording changes solve the problem. Singular and plural forms, minor spelling tweaks, or slight phrasing differences may not do much when the marks otherwise look and sound the same.
Most importantly, remember that trademark relatedness is a consumer-perception question. If buyers are likely to think your shirts, hats, or other branded goods come from the same source as an existing entertainment or media brand, the USPTO may refuse registration even though the parties are not selling identical things.
Final Takeaway on Trademark Relatedness
Trademark relatedness is one of the most important concepts in trademark law because it reflects how real brands operate in the market. The FAMOUS FRIENDS decision shows that clothing and entertainment services can be related when consumers are accustomed to seeing those offerings come from the same source under the same mark. It also shows that applicants can win meaningful specimen battles and still lose the overall case if the marks are too close and the marketplace evidence supports relatedness.
For brand owners, the takeaway is straightforward. Before selecting a trademark, think beyond your immediate product line. A clothing application can run into an entertainment registration. A merchandise brand can run into a media brand. And when trademark relatedness is supported by real-world evidence, the USPTO may view those categories as much closer than they first appear.
