Mrs. United States National Pageant, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 1999

No. 75272603 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 1999)

Paper No. 10
TEH
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB DEC. 20, 99
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Mrs. United States National Pageant, Inc.
________
Serial No. 75/272,603
_______
Joseph Scafetta, Jr. for Mrs. United States National Pageant,
Inc.
Tracy L. Fletcher, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 115
(Tomas Vlcek, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Cissel, Hohein and Holtzman, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Holtzman, Administrative Trademark Judge:
An application has been filed by Mrs. United States National
Pageant, Inc. to register the mark shown below for "entertainment
services in the nature of beauty and talent pageants."1

1 Application Serial No. 75/272,603, filed April 10, 1997; alleging
dates of first use anywhere in January, 1992 and in commerce in
September, 1996. The words "TEEN" and "UNITED STATES PAGEANT" have
been disclaimed.
Ser No. 75/272,603
2
The Trademark Examining Attorney has refused registration
under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act on the ground that
applicant’s mark, when used in connection with applicant’s
services, so resembles the previously registered mark MISS TEEN
USA for "entertainment services; namely, promoting and conducting
beauty pageants" as to be likely to cause confusion.2
When the refusal was made final, applicant appealed. Briefs
have been filed. An oral hearing was not requested.
In any likelihood of confusion analysis, we look to the
factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476
F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973), giving particular attention
to the factors most relevant to the case at hand, including the
similarity of the marks and the relatedness of the goods or
services. See In re Azteca Restaurant Enterprises Inc., 50
USPQ2d 1209 (TTAB 1999) and In re L.C. Licensing Inc., 49 USPQ2d
1379 (TTAB 1998).
In this case, there is no dispute that the services, as
identified in the application and registration, are virtually
identical. Both applicant and registrant operate beauty
pageants. Thus, we turn our attention to the marks.

2 Registration no. 1,660,124; issued August 10, 1991; Sections 8 & 15
affidavit filed; the word "TEEN" has been disclaimed; Section 2(f) as
to "USA."
Ser No. 75/272,603
3
Arguing that there is no likelihood of confusion, applicant
contends that "USA" and "UNITED STATES" are distinguishing
features of the respective marks and that the only undisclaimed
portion of its mark, the stylized term "MISS," is "different"
than the typed word "MISS" in the registration. Applicant
maintains that pageant producers and contestants are sufficiently
sophisticated to recognize the different sources of the
respective services and further argues that applicant is not
aware of any actual confusion.3
We find that the marks are similar in sound, appearance and
commercial impression. Both marks begin with the identical
phrase "MISS TEEN," conveying the impression that the same age
group competes and the same title is bestowed in both pageants.
"MISS TEEN" is immediately followed in both marks by the national
designation "UNITED STATES" or its abbreviated equivalent "USA."
There is simply no basis for applicant’s claim that the two forms

3 Applicant also persists in its arguments that the outcome of a prior
opposition between itself and registrant (Opposition No. 92,171) as
well as applicant’s success in obtaining unchallenged registrations of
other marks for the same services should be "persuasive" that the marks
involved in this appeal "are not confusingly similar." These arguments
miss the point. While the services may be the same, both the mark
involved in the opposition and the marks for which applicant has
obtained registrations are different from the mark involved in this
appeal. Thus, the outcome of that opposition and any alleged
coexistence on the register of those other marks is irrelevant to the
question of whether the mark involved in this case is registrable. If
applicant and registrant agreed that the marks in this case are not
likely to cause confusion, applicant could have obtained and submitted
registrant’s written consent to the registration of this mark.
Ser No. 75/272,603
4
of the same geographic designation are distinguishing features of
applicant’s and registrant’s marks. Finally, the presence of the
word "PAGEANT" in applicant’s mark, as the name of the services,
does nothing to distinguish applicant’s mark from the cited mark.
Moreover, there are only slight visual differences in the
two marks, including a modest stylization of the "MISS TEEN"
portion of applicant’s mark. Contrary to applicant’s claim, this
stylization is of little significance when evaluating likelihood
of confusion. We note that registrant’s mark is depicted in
typed form. This means that registrant is free to present its
registered mark in a variety of forms and styles, including a
stylization similar to that used by applicant. See Phillips
Petroleum Co. v. C. J. Webb, Inc., 442 F.2d 1376, 170 USPQ 35
(CCPA 1971) and In re Fisher Tool Co., Inc., 224 USPQ 796, 797
(TTAB 1984).
Applicant’s arguments concerning purchaser sophistication
and the absence of actual confusion are unsupported and
unpersuasive. Applicant has submitted no evidence as to the
relative sophistication of pageant contestants or the degree of
care one would use in selecting a pageant to enter. In fact, the
typical pageant contestant may have little sophistication in this
field. Further, there is no evidence that pageant "producers,"
regardless of that group’s level of sophistication, are even
considered potential customers for these services. Applicant
Ser No. 75/272,603
5
does not even address the large group of potential purchasers,
namely pageant spectators, who may clearly not be sophisticated
or likely to make the fine distinctions necessary to distinguish
these marks.
Finally, with the absence of any evidence to support
applicant’s claim that there has been no actual confusion, that
claim can be given no consideration. In any event, it is
unnecessary to show actual confusion in establishing likelihood
of confusion.4 Weiss Associates Inc. v. HRL Associates Inc., 902
F.2d 1547, 14 USPQ2d 1840 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
We find, based on the foregoing, that purchasers familiar
with registrant’s beauty pageants offered under the mark MISS
TEEN USA, would be likely to believe, upon encountering
applicant’s stylized mark MISS TEEN UNITED STATES PAGEANT for the
same services, that such pageants emanate from or are otherwise
sponsored by the same source.

4 Applicant urges the Board to "resolve any doubts about this
particular application as to the issue of likelihood of confusion by
allowing [the mark] to be published for opposition." To the extent
that there is any doubt on the issue of likelihood of confusion, which
in this case there is not, it is well settled that such doubt must be
resolved in favor of the prior registrant. In re Shell Oil Co., 992
F.2d 1204, 26 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Ser No. 75/272,603
6
Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed.
R. F. Cissel
G. D. Hohein
T. E. Holtzman
Administrative Trademark
Judges, Trademark Trial
and Appeal Board