Ava Watkins

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 8, 2005

No. 76138675 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2005)

Mailed: 2/8/2005

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Ava Watkins
________

Serial No. 76138675
_______

Charles E. Baxley of Hart Baxley Daniels & Holton for
applicant.

Linda B. Mickleburgh, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law
Office 106 (Mary Sparrow, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Quinn, Bottorff and Drost, Administrative Trademark
Judges.

Opinion by Quinn, Administrative Trademark Judge:

An application was filed by Ava Watkins to register
the mark TWATTY GIRL for “cartoon strips, cartoon prints
and newspaper cartoons.”1
The trademark examining attorney refused registration
under Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act on the ground that
the mark sought to be registered consists of or comprises
immoral or scandalous matter.

1 Application Serial No. 76138675, filed October 2, 2000, based
on an allegation of a bona fide intention to use the mark in
commerce.
THIS DECISION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE TTAB
Ser No. 76138675
2
When the refusal was made final, applicant appealed.
Applicant and the examining attorney filed briefs. An oral
hearing was not requested.
The examining attorney maintains that she has
established, notwithstanding the loosening of contemporary
standards and attitudes on acceptable language to be used
in public, a prima facie case that TWATTY GIRL is offensive
to the conscience of a substantial composite of the general
public. The examining attorney contends that the public
would view “twatty” as an adjectival form of the term
“twat,” and that “twat” is a vulgar term for a woman’s
vagina or genital area; according to the examining
attorney, the “GIRL” portion of the mark simply adds to the
immoral or scandalous connotation of the mark. In support
of the refusal, the examining attorney introduced copies of
dictionary definitions of the term “twat,” a printout of a
GOOGLE search report, pages from websites on the Internet,
and excerpts of articles retrieved from the NEXIS database.
Applicant urges that the refusal be reversed, arguing
that the dictionary evidence of record is not uniform; that
there is no evidence that applicant’s use of the term
“twatty” is consistent with a vulgar meaning; and that
applicant has introduced evidence showing that the term
“twatty,” that is, the specific term in applicant’s mark,
Ser No. 76138675
3
means something significantly different than “twat.” In
this connection, applicant points to an online dictionary
listing showing that the term “twatty” means “daft,” and is
not vulgar. Applicant sums up by contending that when one
considers the alternative, non-vulgar dictionary definition
of “twatty” and the evidence of non-vulgar uses of
“twatty,” the Office cannot fairly rely on dictionary
definitions of a different word, “twat,” in refusing
registration. Applicant also points out that two of her
previously-filed applications for the marks TWATTY (Ser.
No. 75704979) and TWATTYTRAX (Ser. No. 76072967), although
both now abandoned, were passed to publication without a
Section 2(a) rejection by the examining attorneys handling
those applications. Applicant correctly recognizes that
the present examining attorney is not bound by the Office’s
actions relative to applicant’s prior applications.
Applicant contends, however, that this prior history lends
credence to her argument that the present mark is not
proscribed by Section 2(a) of the Act and, at the very
least, that these prior positions contribute to the doubt
about the refusal. In support of her arguments, applicant
introduced dictionary listings for the terms “twat” and
“twatty,” a printout of an Internet search of “twatty” done
Ser No. 76138675
4
through the GOOGLE website, and various printouts of
excerpts of websites retrieved from the Internet.
Applicant’s attorney describes Ms. Watkins and her
comic strip as follows (Brief, p. 6):
Ms. Watkins is a woman and a successful
banking consultant, well known and
respected in the financial community.
She is also an independent and self-
assured person. Her mark TWATTY GIRL
is sassy but not salacious, without a
trace of scandal or immorality, and not
in any way disparaging toward women.
TWATTY GIRL is an animated cartoon
character, appearing in popular, well-
respected animation channels of
distribution, who is SANS SOUCI and
perhaps a bit DAFT, but also a STRONG
and EMPOWERED woman. Indeed, TWATTY
GIRL expresses an attitude of female
INDEPENDENCE, self-respect and one-
upmanship over male domination.

The mark TWATTY GIRL is derived from
the Applicant’s name, Ava Watkins. Ms.
Watkins has created a fictional
character, “Eva Twatkins,” which is
obviously a play on words for Ava
Watkins, and “Twatty Girl” is Eva
Twatkin’s fictional alter ego.

Eva Twatkins is a fictional columnist
who writes a newspaper column that
provides dating advice. Eva studied
karate as a teenager to bolster her
self-esteem after she was harassed by
men. She combines a fresh, Ally
McBeal-like quality with the female
lead characters of Sex and the City.
In other words, the “TWATTY GIRL”
character is a bit of a “party girl.”

Ser No. 76138675
5
Applicant also authored a series of “Twattisms” or
“things Twatty told you but you didn’t want to hear.” The
series of “Twattisms” are “Twatty Girl’s” reflections on
dating, men, and women’s sexuality.
Registration of a mark that consists of or comprises
immoral or scandalous matter is prohibited under Section
2(a) of the Trademark Act. Our primary reviewing court,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, has
stated the following:
To justify refusing to register a
trademark under the first clause of
section 1052(a), the PTO must show that
the mark consists of or comprises
“immoral, deceptive, or scandalous
matter.” In re Mavety Media Group,
Ltd., 33 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir.
1994). A showing that a mark is vulgar
is sufficient to establish that it
“consists of or comprises immoral...or
scandalous matter” within the meaning
of section 1052(a). See id. at 1373-74
(analyzing a mark in terms of
“vulgarity”); In re McGinley, 660 F.2d
481, 485 (CCPA 1981) (quoting with
approval In re Runsdorf, 171 USPQ 443,
443-44 (TTAB 1971), which refused
registration of a mark on grounds of
vulgarity). In meeting its burden, the
PTO must consider the mark in the
context of the marketplace as applied
to the goods described in the
application for registration.
McGinley, 660 F.2d at 485. In
addition, whether the mark consists of
or comprises scandalous matter must be
determined from the standpoint of a
substantial composite of the general
public (although not necessarily a
Ser No. 76138675
6
majority), and in the context of
contemporary attitudes, id., keeping in
mind changes in social mores and
sensitivities, Mavety, 33 F.3d at 1371.

In re Boulevard Entertainment, Inc., 334 F.3d 1336, 67
USPQ2d 1475, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
The record includes the following dictionary
definitions of the term “twat”:
1. Vulgar Slang The vulva. 2.
Offensive & Vulgar Slang A woman or
girl.
(The American Heritage Dictionary of
the English Language (4th ed. 2000)).

1. The vulva. 2. Used as a disparaging
term for a woman.
(The American Heritage Dictionary of
the English Language (3d ed. 1992).

Usually vulgar: vulva.
(Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

1. a taboo term for a woman’s vagina or
genital area; 2. U.K. a taboo term
for somebody regarded as
unintelligent, worthless, or
detestable (taboo insult)
(MSN Encarta Dictionary)

The examining attorney also submitted an additional
dictionary listing for the suffix “-y”: “characterized by;
consisting of; like; to some degree; somewhat; tending
toward; inclined toward; condition; state; quality.” The
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (3d
ed. 1992).
Ser No. 76138675
7
The record includes another dictionary listing of the
term “twat” in the “English slang” portion of The
Alternative English Dictionary. This dictionary listing,
introduced by the examining attorney, reads as follows:
Vagina, less offensive term than cunt;
or twat adj., n. This is a synonym
for...err...female genitalia. Not to
be used in overly-polite company. It
is also slang for hitting something and
(as a noun again) an insult, generally
directed at blokes. A suitably
confusing example would read “some twat
in the pub accused me of having been
near his bird’s twat, so I twatted
him.”

Another dictionary, also with British origins, A Dictionary
of Slang (slang and colloquialisms of the “UK”), lists the
following definition of “twat”: “Noun. 1. The female
genitals. 2. A contemptible person, an idiot. Verb. To hit,
to thump.”
Applicant submitted what is the only dictionary
listing of the specific term in her mark, namely the term
“twatty.” As defined in UrbanDictionary.com
(www.urbandictionary.com), the term “twatty” is defined as
“someone or something which is daft, a light hearted twist
to the insult ‘twat’ but more acceptable for use in
public.” An example of use is given as follows: “For
Ser No. 76138675
8
flips sake Sandra, stop prancing around the place like a
twatty and lay the table.”2
The NEXIS evidence includes the following:
The episode names are rather telling:
“Cum & Quiche,” “Scary Straight
People,” “Potty Mouth Training,” and
“Menage a Twat.”
(Miami New Times, April 26, 2001)

....there’s a huge stock of videos
(some rentals) containing all the usual
suspects, including the Fetish Fanatics
series (e.g. Girls Who Cram Toys in
Their Twats) and “My Dad’s Home
Movies.”
(New Times Los Angeles, March 8, 2001)

Pussycat, powderbox, pum pum, twat,
tottita, coochie snorcher--the female
genitalia has many pet names.
(University Wire, April 10, 2001)

Vagina Monologues, Eve Ensler’s theater
piece about women and their mimis,
totos, split knishes, Gladys
Siegelmans, pussycats, poonanis and
twats.
(The Nation, March 5, 2001)

The examining attorney’s GOOGLE search of “twatty and sex”
yielded a listing of what appear to be adult content
websites. The listings include references such as “Hotty
Twatty Phone Sex.” Applicant’s GOOGLE search of “twatty”

2 A note on the page indicates “Urban Dictionary is not
appropriate for all audiences.” Although the examining attorney
may be correct in stating that this electronic dictionary may not
be “mainstream,” we find that it is entitled to probative value
in our determination.
Ser No. 76138675
9
alone yielded a variety of websites, all but one (“Hotty
Twatty Phone Sex”) appearing to have nothing to do with any
adult content. These websites use “twatty” in the manner
suggested by the British English non-vulgar meanings.
Applicant also has submitted several examples showing
use of the term “twat” in a non-vulgar manner. One article
is taken from urbanreflex.com (www.urbanreflex.com) and is
about the Segway brand human transporter. The article
appears under the headline “Scientists Invent New Way Of
Looking Like A Complete Twat.” The article goes on to
state: “Scientists in the United States have unveiled an
entirely new way for people to look like complete twats.
The Segway human transporter is a hugely expensive
alternative to walking quickly or cycling. Its makers
claim that anyone using it will immediately look like a
twat with minimal effort....The device’s 3000 dollar price
tag is an integral part of its twattiness....The US Postal
Service has already placed an order for several thousand
Segways which, analysts say, will immediately enhance the
device’s ‘twat’ factor.”
Also in the record are pages from the website
www.gofishtx.com. The website shows prominent use of
“TWAT” as an acronym for “Texas Women Anglers Tournament”
which, according to the website, is a competition strictly
Ser No. 76138675
10
for women anglers in Texas. Applicant also submitted three
websites using “TWAT” as an acronym for “The War Against
Terror;” the websites are parodies of American politics and
policies. Yet another website shows “TWAT” as an acronym
for “The War Against Tobacco.”
In our consideration of the mark and the record
evidence, the first point to make is that the term in the
involved mark is “twatty,” not “twat.” Simply put, the
terms “twatty” and “twat” look different, but, moreover,
the term “twatty,” as shown by applicant’s evidence, has a
meaning quite distinct from any immoral, scandalous or
vulgar connotation. We appreciate the examining attorney’s
argument “that in cases where words have a strong
connotation, such as TWAT, as nouns, the mere addition of
the letters required to make the noun into an adjective
does not alter the original meaning nor does it change or
rehabilitate the social acceptability of the term(s).”
(Brief, p. 4). Although this argument may have general
applicability, the viability of the argument is greatly
diminished when the new adjectival term has a non-vulgar
meaning as in the present case.3

3 Without ruling on the registrability of the term “cunty,” a
term that the examining attorney analogizes to the term “twatty,”
suffice it to say that we agree with applicant’s assessment that
this analogy is not persuasive.
Ser No. 76138675
11
In considering the record, we note that some of
applicant’s evidence appears to have its origins in the
United Kingdom, and that the term “twatty” also has a non-
vulgar meaning among the British. In determining whether a
mark is immoral or scandalous, the analysis is made from
the standpoint of a substantial composite of the general
public in the United States. While the general public in
the United States comprises, no doubt, a significant number
of either U.S. citizens with British backgrounds or British
nationals, the analysis must focus on the meaning in this
country. Nonetheless, unlike the case with many foreign
languages, there is a sizeable segment of the American
public familiar with British English. Further, given that
the Internet websites originating in the United Kingdom are
easily accessible in this country, we find that applicant’s
evidence of the non-vulgar meaning and use of “twatty” in
British English merits some probative weight. See In re
Cell Therapeutics Inc., 67 USPQ2d 1795, 1798 (TTAB 2003);
and In re Ramacle, 66 USPQ2d 1222, 1224 n. 5 (TTAB 2002).
To the extent that there is doubt as to the immoral or
scandalous nature of applicant’s mark, that doubt must be
resolved in favor of publication of the mark. See In re
Mavety Media Group, supra at 1926; and In re Hines, 32
USPQ2d 1376 (TTAB 1994).
Ser No. 76138675
12
Decision: The refusal to register is reversed.