United States: Miss Trademark USA: Beauty Pageant Naming Disputes

Last Updated: August 16 2016
Article by David A. Kluft

Just this month, two disputes over the trademark rights to beauty pageant names were resolved, pending appeal. In World Pageants LLC v. Miss G-String International LLC, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("TTAB") dismissed an opposition to the registration of MISS G-STRING INTERNATIONAL because the opposer's mark (MISS NUDE INTERNATIONAL) just wasn't similar enough to cause confusion. Meanwhile, in Organizacion Miss America Latina v. Ramirez, the Southern District of California granted a default judgment to the organizers of the MISS U.S. LATINA pageant, who alleged that their former Texas affiliate had gone rogue and started using the MISS LATINA TEXAS mark for unauthorized activities.

Disputes over beauty pageant names appear to be relatively frequent. Most pageants identify themselves with the traditional naming convention of an honorific (Mr., Miss, etc.) followed by one or two additional words delineating the pageant's geographic scope and/or subject matter (such as the ethnicity or wardrobe of the contestants). When you combine this relatively narrow taxonomy with a crowded field of competitors, many of whom own multiple pageants and multiple pageant marks, you are bound to get litigation.

We were curious about the history of beauty pageant naming litigation, so we decided to gather together in one place the disputes that resulted in a written dispositive opinion (let us know if you think we missed any):

Miss Universe v. Patricelli (2d Cir. 1969). The Second Circuit defined the parameters of the beauty pageant trademark litigation genre by issuing a split decision in a dispute between the plaintiff, the MISS U.S.A. pageant, which was part of the MISS UNIVERSE network, and the defendant, a U.S. affiliate of the London-based MISS WORLD competition. The Second Circuit held that it was proper to preliminarily enjoin the defendant from using MISS U.S.A.-WORLD, but that it was improper to enjoin the defendant's use of the alternative MISS WORLD-U.S.A; the Court found that the latter mark — but not the former — was dominated by the distinguishing major element: "WORLD."

Miss America Pageant v. Miss America Brassiere Company (TTAB 1969). The MISS AMERICA pageant, which was founded in 1921, opposed a clothing company's application to register MISS AMERICA for lingerie. However, whereas the pageant didn't settle on its name until 1935 (it was previously the NATIONAL BEAUTY TOURNAMENT and the SHOWMEN'S VARIETY JUBILLEE OF ATLANTIC CITY), the clothing company had been marketing MISS AMERICA bras since 1926. The opposition was dismissed.

Palisades Pageants v. Miss America (C.C.P.A. 1971) The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (before it was replaced by the Federal Circuit) affirmed the decision of the United States Trademark Office to refuse registration of LITTLE MISS AMERICA. The TTAB found that the Jersey Shore-based pageant for girls ages five to ten was likely to be confused with the MISS AMERICA pageant.

Hal Jackson Associates v. Wortham (TTAB 1973). The MISS BLACK TEEN competition began as a regional New England contest sponsored by the local chapter of the N.A.A.C.P. MISS BLACK TEENAGE AMERICA, although it started several months later, was a televised event based in Atlanta, with national aspirations. The TTAB held that the variant wordings of the two pageants' names were "differences without a distinction" and denied registration of the Atlanta pageant's mark.

Miss Universe v. Drost (TTAB 1975). The MISS U.S.A. pageant organizers opposed an application to register MISS NUDE U.S.A., with the word "Nude" disclaimed. The TTAB held that the contemporaneous use of the two marks for nearly identical services was likely to create confusion, and sustained the opposition.

Stein v. Drost (TTAB 1975). The same applicant whose MISS NUDE U.S.A. mark was refused registration also applied to register MISS NUDE WORLD. The application was opposed by the operator of a preexisting MISS NUDE WORLD pageant which, although based in Canada, was endorsed by several U.S. nudist groups, some which conducted regional contests to pick candidates to send to Canada for the main competition. The TTAB found that these activities constituted sufficient use of the mark in U.S. commerce, and sustained the opposition.

National Teen-Ager v. Hovland (N.D. Ill. 1975). The Northern District of Illinois allowed the MISS NATIONAL TEEN-AGER pageant's motion to enjoin a former employee from using the NATIONWIDE TEENAGER mark.

Miss Universe v. Flesher (9th Cir. 1979). The Ninth Circuit held that the MISS NUDE U.S.A. pageant was likely to be confused with the MISS U.S.A. pageant and affirmed a preliminary injunction against the nude event's continued use of the name.

Miss Universe v. Miss Teen U.S.A. and Miss Universe v. Little Miss U.S.A. (N.D. Ga. 1980). In a pair of similar cases, the Northern District of Georgia enjoined the defendants' use of LITTLE MISS U.S.A. and MISS TEEN U.S.A., on the grounds that both were likely to be confused for affiliates of MISS U.S.A.

United States Olympic Committee v. International Federation of Bodybuilders (D. D.C. 1982). The Federal District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that, although the MR. OLYMPIA bodybuilding competition had improperly used the the Olympic Games rings and torch symbols, it was permitted to keep its name, especially in light of over a decade of use without any actual confusion.

Mecca Limited v. Patricelli (2d Cir. 1979). When the MISS WORLD-U.S.A pageant ended its affiliation with MISS WORLD, it changed its name to MISS VENUS WORLD U.S.A. The MISS WORLD organizers brought suit, and the pageant was ordered to drop the "WORLD." It became the MISS VENUS-U.S.A. pageant.

National Physique v. Amateur Athletic Union (S.D.N.Y. 1982). The organizer of a MISTER AMERICA bodybuilding contest moved to preliminarily enjoin a competitor from using the mark. The injunction was refused in light of the plaintiff's murky ownership claim and the fact that the defendant had been using the name for forty years.

Miss Universe v. Patricelli (2d Cir. 1985). MISS WORLD was satisfied that the organizer of MISS VENUS WORLD U.S.A. changed its name to MISS VENUS – U.S.A. However, the organizers of MISS U.S.A. were not so happy with the change, and brought a new lawsuit against the MISS VENUS- U.S.A. pageant. With reference to its 1969 Patricelli ruling, the Second Circuit found that the public was unlikely to be confused.

Miss World (UK) Limited v. Mrs. America Pageants (9th Cir. 1988). The Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court's refusal to grant an injunction against the defendant's use of MRS. OF THE WORLD, finding that the plaintiff's MISS WORLD mark was relatively weak and that there was insufficient evidence of confusion.

Miss Universe v. Pitts (W.D. La. 1989). On the motion of the organizers of the MISS UNIVERSE and MISS U.S.A. pageants, the Western District of Louisiana enjoined the defendants from developing a competing MRS. UNIVERSE and MRS. USA franchise.

American Dairy Queen Corp. v. New Line Productions (D. Minn. 1998). The DAIRY QUEEN ice cream company obtained an injunction against the use of the title DAIRY QUEENS for a planned mockumentary about beauty contests in rural Minnesota. The film was retitled Drop Dead Gorgeous.

Guillot v. Wagner (Ct. App. La. 1999). The Court of Appeal of Louisiana affirmed the refusal to enjoin the defendant's use of MISS JEFFERSON PARISH PAGEANT because the plaintiffs, owners of the MISS JEFFERSON PARISH SCHOLARSHIP PAGEANT, failed to introduce evidence other than the similarity of the names.

Miss Asia Beauty Pageant v. A.L. Models (TTAB 2000). A former sponsor of the MISS ASIA BEAUTY PAGEANT decided to go it alone and registered the MISS ASIAN WORLD BEAUTY PAGEANT mark. The TTAB found that the former sponsor had procured its registration by fraud, and allowed a petition to cancel the registration.

Miss Universe v. Rainbow Productions(TTAB 2004). The MISS TEEN USA pageant opposed Rainbow Production's application to register MISS T-GIRL USA for "gay beauty pageants." The applicant failed to present evidence of the meaning of "T-GIRL" and, in the absence of such evidence, the TTAB held that the marks shared overall similar commercial impressions. The opposition was sustained.

Goldfaden v. Miss World (D. N.J. 2005). When Gerald Goldfaden registered the MISS WORLD WIDE WEB mark for conducting online beauty contests, he bought himself years of litigation in various fora with the MISS WORLD pageant. In this round, the District of New Jersey denied MISS WORLD's motions for summary judgment against Goldfaden's declaratory judgment complaint.

Miss Universe v. Community Marketing (TTAB 2007). The organizers of the MISS UNIVERSE pageant opposed registration of MR. GAY UNIVERSE. The TTAB sustained the opposition, citing the widespread notoriety of the MISS UNIVERSE mark and holding that the relevant public was likely to assume a common source.

Miss Universe v. Villegas (S.D.N.Y. 2009). The MISS USA pageant brought an action to put a stop to the MISS ASIA USA pageant. The Southern District of New York granted judgment for the defendants, finding that the overall commercial impressions were different.

Mrs. United States National Pageant v. Richardson (TTAB 2009). An application to register MRS. U.S. INTERNATIONAL for pageants was opposed by the owners of the MRS. UNITED STATES NATIONAL PAGEANT mark. The TTAB found that the marks were more similar than dissimilar and refused registration.

Mrs. United States National Pageant v. Miss United States of America Organization (W.D.N.Y. 2012). The owner of the MRS. UNITED STATES mark brought suit against the MISS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA pageant. The Western District of New York held that "OF AMERICA" did not sufficiently distinguish the marks and granted the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction.

Miss Lebanon v. Kayrouz (E.D. Mich. 2013). When the MISS LEBANON EMIGRANT contest of New Jersey brought suit against the organizer of the MISS LEBANON EMIGRANTS beauty pageant of Michigan, the defendant decided to discontinue using the name and a quick settlement in principle was reached by email. When the defendant changed her mind, the Eastern District of Michigan enforced the email settlement agreement.

In re Mason (TTAB 2013). An application to register MISS COSMOS was refused in light of a preexisting registration for the MISS CHINESE COSMOS PAGEANT. Because both marks contained the words "MISS" and "COSMOS" in the same order, the TTAB found that they were likely to be confused for one another and affirmed the refusal.

Harrison Productions v. Harris (TTAB 2015). The MISS AMERICAN BEAUTY pageant filed a petition to cancel the AMERICAN BEAUTY pageant mark on the grounds of fraud, claiming that the event purportedly promoted by the respondent never actually took place. The TTAB found that this was not sufficient proof of a knowingly false statement and dismissed the petition.

To view Foley Hoag's Trademark and Copyright Law Blog please click here

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.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
12 Oct 2018, Other, Boston, United States

The New England Electricity Restructuring Roundtable has been meeting bimonthly since 1995 to discuss current topics related to important changes in the electric power industry in Massachusetts and throughout New England.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions