MJ Products Association

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

May 21, 2020

87584821 (T.T.A.B. May. 21, 2020)

Mailed: May 21, 2020

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re MJ Products Association LLC
_____

Serial No. 87584821

_____

Barry L. Haley of Malin Haley Dimaggio & Bowen P.A.,
for MJ Products Association LLC.

Steven W. Ferrell Jr., Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 121,
Richard White, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Kuhlke, Wolfson, and Heasley,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Wolfson, Administrative Trademark Judge:
MJ Products Association LLC (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal
Register of the mark GLAMOUR CAMPER in standard characters for “Insect
repellant sunscreen creams containing glitter” in International Class 3.1

1 Serial No. 87584821, filed on August 25, 2017, under Section 1(a) of the Trademark Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1051(a); amended June 1, 2018 to claim Section 1(b), 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), as the basis
for registration, alleging Applicant’s bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce.
This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Serial No. 87584821
- 2 -
The Examining Attorney refused registration of Applicant’s mark under
Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), based on a prior registration of the
mark CAMPER and design (as depicted below) for goods in International Class 3.2

The Examining Attorney based the refusal on the following goods from the
registration:
• Aftershaves; after-shave cologne; bath gel; bath oil; bath salts;
beauty masks; body creams; deodorants; body lotion for
cosmetic use; oil for the body; body powders for cosmetic use;
cosmetic creams; cosmetic crayons; cosmetics; cotton for
cosmetic use; body deodorants; depilatory creams; eau de
cologne; eau de parfum; perfumes; eye cream; eye makeup; eye
makeup removing lotions; eyeshadow; liners; cream for the face;
make-up; hair decolorants; hair care preparations; hair
conditioner; creams for the hair; hair lotions; hand cream;
soaps; balms for the lips; lipsticks; make-up removing lotions;
moisturizers; nail care preparations; cream for the nails; nail
polish; nail polish removers; night creams; bath salts not for
medical use; shampoos; shaving cream; shaving balms; skin
cleaning lotions; skin cream; moisturizing cream for the skin;
soaps for skincare; face paint; sun-tanning oils.

2 Registration No. 4690397, issued February 24, 2015. The description of the mark reads: The
mark consists of the word ‘CAMPER’ inside a rectangle with a curved bottom.” Color is not
claimed as a feature of the mark. The registration also covers goods in class 9 that are not
part of the basis for the refusal.
Serial No. 87584821
- 3 -
After the Examining Attorney made the refusal final, Applicant appealed and filed
a request for reconsideration. When the request for reconsideration was denied, the
appeal resumed. Both Applicant and the Examining Attorney filed briefs. For the
reasons discussed herein, we affirm the refusal to register.
I. Likelihood of Confusion
Our determination of the issue of likelihood of confusion is based on an analysis of
all the probative facts in evidence that are relevant to the factors set forth in In re E. I.
du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973) (“DuPont”);
see also In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
In any likelihood of confusion analysis, two key considerations are the similarities
between the marks and the similarities between the goods and services. See Federated
Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24 (CCPA 1976); In
re Dixie Restaurants Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 41 USPQ2d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We
consider the DuPont factors for which arguments and evidence were presented. In re
Guild Mortg. Co., 912 F.3d 1376, 129 USPQ2d 1160, 1162-63 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
A. Similarity of the Marks
We initially consider and compare the appearance, sound, connotation and
commercial impression of the marks in their entireties. Palm Bay Imps. Inc. v. Veuve
Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692
(Fed. Cir. 2005). “For rational reasons, the comparison may give more or less weight
to a particular feature of the marks.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281
F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Design features of a mark are
Serial No. 87584821
- 4 -
typically accorded less weight because consumers are more likely to remember the
words in the mark and will call for the goods by such words rather than by describing
the design features. In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1911 (Fed.
Cir. 2012) (citing Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 218
USPQ 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (finding that the term GIANT was the dominant
portion of a mark consisting of the words GIANT HAMBURGERS with a large
background design, even though the applicant had disclaimed GIANT
HAMBURGERS); In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181, 1184 (TTAB
2018). Where, as here, the design is a simple and common geometric shape serving as
mere background for the wording, consumers are even less likely to notice the design
or consider it a source-signifier. Thus, it is not improper to give more weight to the
word CAMPER as the dominant portion of Registrant’s mark “provided the ultimate
conclusion rests on a consideration of the marks in their entireties.” Aquitaine Wine,
126 USPQ2d at 1185 (citing In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ2d 749,
751 (Fed. Cir. 1983)); Edom Labs., Inc. v. Lichter, 102 USPQ2d 1546, 1551 (TTAB
2012).
Applicant’s mark, GLAMOUR CAMPER, is similar in appearance and
pronunciation to the Registrant’s mark because they both share the term “CAMPER.”
Applicant focuses its argument against similarity on the connotations of the marks,
contending that the words convey different meanings because of the additional term
“GLAMOUR” in Applicant’s mark. Applicant argues that
GLAMOUR CAMPER is an oxymoron expressing contra-
dictionally opposing mental terms in a human brain. Anyone
Serial No. 87584821
- 5 -
who has ever been a camper outdoors in a primitive
environment knows that the physical and mental experiences
do not connote glamour. The combination of the words
GLAMOUR and CAMPER forming Applicant’s mark
GLAMOUR CAMPER creates a distinctive, contra-dictional
commercial impression and distinguishes from the mark
CAMPER and DESIGN in the minds of humans who have had
primitive camping experiences.
Applicant’s Brief, 8 TTABVUE 8-9.
The Examining Attorney contends that there is nothing incongruous in the mark
GLAMOUR CAMPER and that Applicant’s argument “ignores the fact that ‘glamour
camping,’ ‘glamourous camping,’ or, in short, ‘glamping’ is a category of or type of
camping.” 10 TTABVUE 8. In support, the Examining Attorney submitted website
pages from HuffingtonPost.com, IDYourself.com, and Wikipedia.org that discuss
“glamour camping” or “glamping” as a type of camping “with amenities and, in some
cases, resort-style services not usually associated with ‘traditional’ camping.”
December 20, 2018 Final Office Action, TSDR 2-9 (citing Wikipedia entry for
“Glamping,” reprinted at IDYourself.com).3
Applicant’s addition of GLAMOUR to Registrant’s mark, forming GLAMOUR
CAMPER, “appears to indicate a different line of goods from the same source—a line
of goods that is similar to registrant’s current goods with something that makes them
‘glamourous.’” Examining Attorney’s Brief, 10 TTABVUE 7-8. We agree with the

3 We take judicial notice of the definition of “glamping” in Merriam-Webster’s online
dictionary as “outdoor camping with amenities and comforts (such as beds, electricity, and
access to indoor plumbing) not usually used when camping.” At https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/glamping, accessed May 19, 2020. The Board may take judicial notice
of definitions from dictionaries, including online dictionaries that exist in printed format. E.g.,
In re S. Malhotra & Co. AG, 128 USPQ2d 1100, 1104 n.9 (TTAB 2018).
Serial No. 87584821
- 6 -
Examining Attorney that potential consumers could “reasonably assume, due to the
overall similarities in sound, appearance, connotation, and commercial impression in
the respective marks, that Applicant’s goods provided under the GLAMOUR
CAMPER mark constitute a new or additional line of goods from the same source as
the goods provided under registrant’s CAMPER mark, and that Applicant’s mark is
merely a variation of registrant’s mark.” Id. (citing SMS, Inc. v. Byn-Mar Inc., 228
USPQ 219, 220 (TTAB 1985) (applicant’s marks ALSO ANDREA and ANDREA
SPORT were “likely to evoke an association by consumers with opposer’s preexisting
mark [ANDREA SIMONE] for its established line of clothing.”)). We agree that when
viewed in their entireties, the marks are similar in sight, sound, connotation, and
commercial impression, particularly since they share the identical term “CAMPER,”
which suggests the outdoors, for which insect repellent and sunscreen creams are
particularly suited. Thus, the first DuPont factor weighs in favor of finding a
likelihood of confusion.
B. Relatedness of the Goods
We turn next to the second DuPont factor, which requires us to determine the
similarity or dissimilarity of the goods as identified in Applicant’s application and the
cited registration. Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d
1317, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1161-1162 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“the question of registrability
of an applicant’s mark must be decided on the basis of the identification of goods set
forth in the application”); Octocom Sys., Inc. v. Houston Comps. Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d
937, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Hewlett-Packard Co., 62 USPQ2d at
Serial No. 87584821
- 7 -
1001. The goods need not be identical or even competitive in order to support a finding
of likelihood of confusion. Rather, it is enough that they are related in some manner
or that some circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they would be
likely to be seen by the same persons under circumstances which could give rise,
because of the marks used or intended to be used therewith, to a mistaken belief that
they originate from or are in some way associated with the same producer or that
there is an association between the producers of the parties’ goods. The issue is not
likelihood of confusion between particular goods, but likelihood of confusion as to the
source or sponsorship of those goods. In re Majestic Distilling, 65 USPQ2d at 1205; In
re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s goods are “insect repellant sunscreen creams containing glitter” and
Registrant’s goods include “sun-tanning oils.” Applicant argues that “[s]un-tanning oil
is a completely different product, sold in a different market, for a different purpose,
than insect repellent sunscreen creams with glitter.” 8 TTABVUE 10. As noted above,
the goods do not have to be the same to be related; the question is whether consumers
are likely to believe the goods emanate from the same source regardless of their
differences. Here, Applicant has presented no evidence to establish that the goods are
unrelated or serve different purposes. To the contrary, the Examining Attorney’s
evidence establishes that the goods are indeed related, and are complementary in
terms of purpose or function. Further, the registration includes broadly worded items
such as “body creams [and] skin cream” that encompass Applicant’s more narrowly
construed “insect repellant sunscreen creams containing glitter.”
Serial No. 87584821
- 8 -
To demonstrate the relatedness of the identified goods, the Examining Attorney
submitted third-party web pages, showing that many vendors sell both sunscreen
creams and other skin care products. Illustrative examples include:
• AVON – under the mark SKIN SO SOFT, Avon markets a line
of insect repellant sunscreen cream and bath oil;4

• HAWAIIAN TROPIC – Hawaiian Tropic sells a variety of
sunscreens and tanning oils under the mark HAWAIIAN
TROPIC;5

• DETER – sells insect repellent plus sunscreen, after-sun lotion,
and lip balm, all under the DETER mark;6 and

• NEUTROGENA – sells a variety of sunscreen lotions and skin
care products (facial cleansers, toners, moisturizers and
serums), plus make-up and men’s shave cream, shave gel, and
face scrub, all under the NEUTROGENA mark.7

4 At www.avon.com, October 8, 2019 Denial of Request for Reconsideration, TSDR 2-11.
5 At www.hawaiiantropic.com, December 20, 2018 Office Action, TSDR 22-25.
6 At https://deteroutdoor.com, Denial of Request for Reconsideration, TSDR 18-19.
7 At www.neutrogena.com, December 1, 2017 Office Action, TSDR 26-30.
Serial No. 87584821
- 9 -

The website evidence demonstrates that the same entity sells both sunscreen
creams (with or without insect repellent) and other cosmetic items under a single
mark. See Hewlett-Packard Co., 62 USPQ2d at 1004 (evidence that “a single company
sells the goods and services of both parties, if presented, is relevant to the relatedness
analysis....”) quoted in In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1514-15 (TTAB
2016). The second DuPont factor weighs in favor of finding a likelihood of confusion.
C. Channels of Trade and Classes of Purchasers
Regarding channels of trade and classes of purchasers, where, as here, there is an
absence of any restrictions or limitations in the application or registration, we must
assume the goods are sold or marketed through all the normal and usual trade
channels for such goods and that they are offered to all the usual purchasers of such
goods. See Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group, Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 98 USPQ2d
1253, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Hewlett-Packard Co., 62 USPQ2d at 1005; In re Jump
Designs LLC, 80 USPQ2d 1370, 1374 (TTAB 2006).
Applicant argues that “[t]he products being sold under these marks are completely
different and do not suggest to a consumer the same source of goods.” 8 TTABVUE
10. As noted above, however, the Examining Attorney has submitted evidence that
various companies offer both the goods identified by Applicant and those identified in
the cited registration, via the same web sources. We find the third DuPont factor to
favor finding a likelihood of confusion.
Serial No. 87584821
- 10 -
II. Balancing the Factors
After considering all of the arguments and evidence of record as they pertain to
the relevant DuPont factors, we find that the marks are substantially similar in sight,
sound, connotation and commercial impression. We further find the goods are related,
as are the channels of trade.
Accordingly, we find that there is a likelihood of confusion between Applicant’s
mark GLAMOUR CAMPER and the cited mark for the goods as identified.
Decision: The Section 2(d) refusal to register Applicant’s mark is affirmed.