Polo Ralph Lauren, L.P.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 7, 1998

No. 75101700 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 7, 1998)

Paper No. 13
PTH
THIS DISPOSITION IS
NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE
TTAB 10/7/98
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Polo Ralph Lauren, L.P.
________
Serial No. 75/101,700
_______
Anthony F. Lo Cicero of Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein for
Polo Ralph Lauren, L.P.
Ann E. Sappenfield, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law
Office 107 (Thomas Lamone, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Hairston, Chapman and Wendel, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Hairston, Administrative Trademark Judge:
An application has been filed by Ralph Lauren Polo,
L.P. to register the mark DENIM for “potpourri and sachets”
(in International Class 3) and “scented candles” (in
International Class 4).1

1 Application Serial No. 75/101,700 filed May 9, 1996; alleging a
bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce.
Ser No. 75/101,700
2
Registration has been finally refused under Section
2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), on the
ground that applicant’s mark, if applied to its goods,
would so resemble the mark DENIM which is registered for
“cologne and after shave,”2 as to be likely to cause
confusion.
Applicant has appealed. Briefs have been filed, but
an oral hearing was not requested. We affirm the refusal
to register.
At the outset, we note that applicant’s and
registrant’s marks are identical.3 The Board has stated in
the past that “[i]f marks are the same or almost so, it is
only necessary that there be a viable relationship between
the goods or services in order to support a holding of
likelihood of confusion.” In re Concordia International
Forwarding Corp., 222 USPQ 355, 356 (TTAB 1983).
In the present case, we find that the record amply
supports the Examining Attorney’s position that potpourri,
sachets and scented candles, on the one hand, and cologne,
on the other, are related products. The Examining Attorney

2 Registration No. 1,166,891 issued September 1, 1981; Section 8
affidavit accepted.
3 We reject applicant’s contention that the marks have different
connotations. There is no support in the record for applicant’s
contention that registrant’s mark evokes “images of homespun
simplicity.” We agree with the Examining Attorney that DENIM is
arbitrary as applied to both applicant’s and registrant’s goods.
Ser No. 75/101,700
3
has made of record several registrations which indicate
that entities have registered a single mark for one or more
of the goods on which applicant intends to use its mark and
cologne and/or perfume. For example, SATIVA is registered
for perfume, cologne and candles; ESTEBAN is registered for
perfume, colognes, sachets for perfuming linens, and
perfumed candles; EARTH SOURCE is registered for perfumes,
perfumed potpourri and perfumed candles; and HERBAL
METAPHORS is registered for sachets, perfume, and candles.
These registrations serve to suggest that the listed goods
are of a type which emanate from a single source. In re
Mucky Duck Mustard Co., Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1467 (TTAB 1988).
Further, the Examining Attorney submitted copies of
articles and advertisements appearing in magazines,
catalogues, and on the Internet which feature one or more
of the goods on which applicant intends to use its mark and
fragrances. For example, one article discusses THE GAP’s
new line of “Om” personal products which includes perfume,
an aromatic candle and potpourri; an advertisement features
FRENCH VANILLA eau de toilette, body cologne mist,
potpourri and scented candle; and a catalog features SUMMER
HILL eau de toilette and potpourri and VERANDA eau de
toilette and potpourri. Finally, the Examining Attorney
submitted copies of two magazine articles which indicate
Ser No. 75/101,700
4
that there is a trend among companies which market
toiletries to expand into the home fragrance market, i.e.,
candles, potpourri and other scented products.
Moreover, since neither applicant’s application nor
the cited registration contains any limitations as to
channels of trade or classes of purchasers, applicant’s
potpourri, sachets and scented candles and registrant’s
cologne must be presumed to move in all channels of trade
and to be sold to all classes of purchasers normal for
these type of goods. Thus, in our likelihood of confusion
analysis, we must presume that the parties’ goods would be
sold to the same classes of purchasers and in the same
channels of trade, such as department stores, mass
merchandisers, specialty stores, and drug stores.
Under the circumstances, we conclude that purchasers
familiar with registrant’s cologne offered under the mark
DENIM, would be likely to believe, upon encountering
applicant’s mark DENIM for potpourri, sachets and scented
candles, that the goods originated with or were somehow
associated with the same source.
To the extent that there is any doubt on the issue of
likelihood of confusion, it is settled that such doubt must
be resolved in favor of the prior registrant and against
Ser No. 75/101,700
5
applicant. In re Shell Oil Co., 922 F.2d 1204, 26 USPQ2d
1687 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed.
P. T. Hairston
B. A. Chapman
H. R. Wendel
Administrative Trademark
Judges, Trademark Trial and
Appeal Board
Ser No. 75/101,700
6