The Board affirmed a refusal to register HERE FOR THE GIRLS for "Charitable services, namely, providing emotional support services for improvement of young womens [sic] lives affected by Breast Cancer by means of in-person and online support," finding a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark FOR THE GIRLS for "Promoting public awareness of breast cancer over the Internet." There was no doubt about the similarity of the marks, and third-party confirmed the relatedness of the services. In addition, applicant's specimen of use failed to associate the mark with the services. In re Here for the Girls, Inc. dba Beyond Boobs!, Pink-Link and Pink Lin, Serial No. 87345046 (April 23, 2019) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Thomas Shaw).

The Board observed that both applicant and registrant are providing services related to combating breast cancer. Examining Attorney Sandra Snabb submitted seven (7) third-party registrations establishing that cancer-survivor support services and cancer-awareness promotion services are commonly provided by the same entity under the same mark. The Board therefore found that "[t]he respective services are commonly offered under the same mark by the same entity to the same consumers, namely, patients, family members, and caregivers." And so it affirmed the Section 2(d) refusal.

Applicant described its specimen of use [here] as "the support webpage showing a white box in the center of the page displaying the words 'Here for the Girls.'"

The mark HERE FOR THE GIRLS appears in the URL of the web page and in a white box in the middle of the page. The page includes a tab at the top of the page with the word "DONATE" in a pink box. However, there is no mention of any services Applicant is providing. That is, prospective consumers may donate, but they will have no idea to whom they are donating or why. Absent any references to Applicant's charitable services, the mark HERE FOR THE GIRLS is not associated with the services. See, e.g., In re Keep A Breast Found., 123 USPQ2d 1869, 1876-1879 (TTAB 2017). As such, applicant's specimen fails to show use of Applicant's mark in commerce in connection with the identified services.

And so the Board also affirmed the refusal based on applicant's inadequate specimen of use.

Read comments and post your comment here.

The TTABlog

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.