The Junior Golf Company

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2000

No. 75169949 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2000)

Paper No. 12
CEW
8/31/00
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
___________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
___________
In re The Junior Golf Company
___________
Serial No. 75/169,949
___________
Daniel J. Duffy of Cassem, Tierney, Adams, Gotch & Douglas
for applicant.
Diane Beth Melnick, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law
Office 108 (David Shallant, Managing Attorney).
____________
Before Walters, Chapman and Bottorff, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Walters, Administrative Trademark Judge:
A trademark application has been filed1 to register on
the Principal Register the mark LITTLE TIGER for “golf
equipment for children, namely, golf bags and golf clubs,
excluding golf balls,” in International Class 28.2

1 The application was filed originally by Patrick J. Duffy. A copy of
an assignment of the application to The Junior Golf Company was
submitted in this application. We note that, if this application
should ultimately proceed to registration, the assignment must be
properly recorded with the United States Patent and Trademark Office
for a registration to issue in the name of the assignee. See Section
10 of the Act.
2 Serial No. 75/169,949, filed on September 23, 1996, based on an
allegation of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce. An
amendment to allege use was filed on October 14, 1997, alleging, as
THIS DISPOSITION
IS NOT CITABLE AS
PRECEDENT
OF THE T.T.A.B.
Serial No. 75/169,949
2
The Trademark Examining Attorney has finally refused
registration under Sections 2(a) and (c) of the Trademark
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a) and (c), on the ground that
applicant’s mark falsely suggests a connection with the
professional golfer Tiger Woods, whose consent to
registration herein is not of record.
Applicant has appealed. Both applicant and the
Examining Attorney have filed briefs, but an oral hearing
was not requested. We affirm the refusal on both asserted
grounds.
Considering, first, the refusal under Section 2(a) of
the Act, the Examining Attorney contends that “the name
‘Tiger,’ together with goods which are commonly associated
with golf, points unmistakably to Tiger Woods, the
professional golfer”; that, in the context of golf, the
name “Tiger” without any surname points unmistakably to
Tiger Woods; that “Tiger Woods has achieved an
unprecedented level of fame in the past several years, both
as an amateur and a professional golfer”; and that “the
inclusion of the word ‘little’ in applicant’s mark simply
reinforces the connotation that the goods are associated
with Tiger Woods and intended for children.” In support of

amended, a date of first use and first use in commerce of March 3,
1997.
Serial No. 75/169,949
3
her position, the Examining Attorney has submitted numerous
excerpts of articles from the LEXIS/NEXIS database, and
from magazines and Internet web sites, all referring to the
golfer, Tiger Woods, as “Tiger Woods” or simply as “Tiger.”
Applicant contends that the Examining Attorney has not
established that applicant’s mark, LITTLE TIGER, is
unmistakably associated with and points uniquely to Tiger
Woods; that “the word ‘tiger’ has for many years been
associated with and identified as an animal by the general
public and certain athletic teams.” Applicant does not
dispute that Tiger Woods is famous; however, applicant
contends that his fame is “relatively new” and “does not
erase the association of the word ‘tiger’ with an animal,
especially within the athletic industry.” Applicant
describes its reasons for choosing its mark as evidence of
its lack of intent to associate the mark with Tiger Woods.
Section 2(a) requires that registration be refused if
the mark sought to be registered “consists of or comprises
matter which … may falsely suggest a connection with
persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national
symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.” As
the Court explained in University of Notre Dame du Lac v.
J.C. Gourmet Food Imports, Inc., 703 F.2d 1373, 217 USPQ
505 (Fed. Cir. 1983):
Serial No. 75/169,949
4
A reading of the legislative history with respect
to what became Section 2(a) shows that the
drafters were concerned with protecting the name
of an individual or institution which was not a
technical “trademark” or “trade name” upon which
an objection could be made under Section 2(d) …
Although not articulated as such, it appears that
the drafters sought by Section 2(a) to embrace
the concepts of the right to privacy, an area of
the law then in an embryonic state …
The Examining Attorney, who has the burden of
establishing the elements of the refusal to register under
Section 2(a), must establish that the mark in question
points uniquely to persons, living or dead, institutions,
beliefs, or national symbols. University of Notre Dame du
Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports, Inc., supra at 509.
Further, the Examining Attorney must establish that such
person or institution: (1) is not connected with the goods
or services performed by applicant under the mark, and (2)
is sufficiently famous that a connection with such person
or institution would be presumed when applicant’s mark is
used in connection with its goods or services. See, In re
Sloppy Joe’s International Inc., 43 USPQ2d 1350 (TTAB
1997); In re North American Free Trade Association, 43
USPQ2d 1282 (TTAB 1997); In re Nuclear Research Corp., 16
USPQ2d 1316 (TTAB 1990); In re Cotter & Co., 228 USPQ 202,
204 (TTAB 1985); and Buffett v. Chi-Chi’s Inc., 226 USPQ
428 (TTAB 1985).
Serial No. 75/169,949
5
We turn, first, to the requirement that the Office
establish that LITTLE TIGER points uniquely to a person, in
this case, Tiger Woods. The evidence made of record by the
Examining Attorney clearly establishes that Tiger Woods has
received widespread publicity as a golfer since at least
1996, the earliest date of the excerpts in this record; and
that, as applicant does not dispute, he has been famous as
a golfer since that time, regardless of whether his status
was as a professional or an amateur. While Tiger Woods’
fame as a golfer may be relatively recent, the record
establishes his notoriety since at least 1996; and this
predates applicant’s first use of its mark in connection
with the identified goods.
Clearly, in determining whether a mark points uniquely
to a particular person or persons, the context of the use
of the mark and the nature and extent of the person’s fame
is of utmost relevance. In this case, both Tiger Woods’
fame and applicant’s goods pertain to the game of golf.
While we accept that the word “tiger,” in everyday
parlance, refers to an animal, we would be remiss if we
considered the word “tiger” in a vacuum.3 Rather, we

3 The fact that applicant’s specimen of record pictures the mark in
close proximity to a drawing of a four-legged tiger is immaterial to
our consideration. The mark that is the subject of this application
does not contain any design element and we must assume that it can
appear in any context, with or without any design element.
Serial No. 75/169,949
6
conclude that the word “tiger,” in connection with golf
activities and products, points unmistakably and uniquely
to Tiger Woods. Although the word LITTLE modifies the word
TIGER in applicant’s mark, applicant’s goods are golf
products for children. Similarly, the mark LITTLE TIGER,
used on golf products for children, is likely to be
understood as pointing unmistakably and uniquely to Tiger
Woods and indicating the child’s desire to emulate Tiger
Woods. Thus, we conclude that the mark LITTLE TIGER, in
connection with applicant’s identified golf products for
children, points uniquely to Tiger Woods. Applicant’s
intent in this regard is immaterial to our consideration
under Section 2(a) of the Act.
Second, it is clear, as applicant concedes, that Tiger
Woods is not connected in any way with the goods identified
by applicant’s LITTLE TIGER mark.
Finally, as indicated above, the evidence establishes
that Tiger Woods is sufficiently famous that a connection
with him will be presumed when applicant’s mark is used on
its identified goods.
Accordingly, we find that the Examining Attorney has
met the burden of proving that applicant’s mark LITTLE
TIGER falsely suggests a connection with the golfer Tiger
Woods, and we affirm the refusal on this ground.
Serial No. 75/169,949
7
Considering, next, the refusal to register under
Section 2(c) of the Act, the Examining Attorney contends
that, as argued in connection with the Section 2(a)
refusal, applicant’s mark, LITTLE TIGER, for golf products
points unmistakably to Tiger Woods; and that his consent is
not of record in this application. Consistent with its
argument in connection with the Section 2(a) refusal,
applicant contends that its mark does not identify a
particular living individual within the meaning of the Act
and, thus, consent is not necessary.
Section 2(c) of the Act requires that registration be
refused if the mark sought to be registered “consists of or
comprises a name … identifying a particular living
individual except by his written consent ….” It is not
necessary that the matter involved be the full name of the
living individual. Reed v. Bakers Engineering & Equipment
Co., 100 USPQ 196 (Chief Examiner 1954). Written consent
under Section 2(c) is required if a real person bearing the
name is famous or publicly connected with the business in
which the mark is used, so that the public will associate
that person’s name with the goods and assume that he or she
is being identified. In re Sauer, 27 USPQ2d 1073 (TTAB
1993), aff’d, 26 F.3d 140, (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Serial No. 75/169,949
8
As held above in relation to Section 2(a), the mark
LITTLE TIGER points unmistakably and uniquely to the famous
golfer Tiger Woods. It is clear that the public will
associate Tiger Woods’ name with the identified goods.
Therefore, his written consent to registration is required.
The refusal under Section 2(c) of the Act is affirmed.
Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed under
Sections 2(a) and (c) of the Act.
C. E. Walters
B. A. Chapman
C. M. Bottorff
Administrative Trademark Judges,
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board