The Salvation Army

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 8, 2016

No. 86150336 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 8, 2016)

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: July 8, 2016

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re The Salvation Army
_____

Serial No. 86150336
_____

Claudia Rast of Butzel Long,
for The Salvation Army.
John S. Yard, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 115,
John Lincoski, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Seeherman, Kuhlke and Shaw,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Kuhlke, Administrative Trademark Judge:
The Salvation Army (“Applicant”), an Illinois corporation, seeks registration on
the Principal Register of the mark shown below for “charitable fundraising services
by means of collecting clothing for donation of redemption proceeds to charitable
organizations; charitable fundraising services used to purchase clothing for needy
persons,” in International Class 36.1

1 Application Serial No. 86150336 was filed on December 21, 2013, under Section 1(a) of the
Trademark Act, based upon Applicant’s allegation of first use and first use in commerce on
Serial No. 86150336
- 2 -

The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration of Applicant’s mark
under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), on the ground that
Applicant’s mark, when used in connection with the identified services, so resembles
the marks in the thirteen registrations, summarized below, owned by three different
entities incorporated in different states, two of which have the name The Salvation

December 1, 2013. The application includes a disclaimer of the wording “COATS FOR KIDS,”
and the following description of the mark:
The mark consists of an orange and white coat with a blue scarf
and 4 additional coats in blue, green, red and purple, each with
white trim, with the literal element “COATS” in purple, the
literal elements “FOR” and “& MORE” in green and the literal
element “KIDS” in blue with a red shield with the literal
elements “THE SALVATION ARMY” inscribed in white.
In addition, the application includes the following color claim:
The color(s) orange, blue, white, green, red and purple is/are
claimed as a feature of the mark.
Finally, the application, as filed, includes a claim of ownership of prior Reg. Nos. 807044,
1061876, 1061877, 1657612, 3360432, “and others.”
Serial No. 86150336
- 3 -
Army and one of which has the name The Salvation Army National Corporation, as
to be likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception. In maintaining the refusal, the
Examining Attorney stated “[w]hile each of the owners of the cited marks appeared
to be related to the applicant in some manner, each owner was seen to be a separate
and distinct organization known as and/or affiliated with the Salvation Army. The
applicant is The Salvation Army, an Illinois corporation. The registrants include The
Salvation Army National Corporation (a corporation of New Jersey) and various
Salvation Army entities incorporated in New York and California.” January 21, 2016
Final Office action.
The following registrations are owned by the New York corporation, The Salvation
Army:
Reg. No. 1061876 for the mark THE SALVATION ARMY
BLOOD AND FIRE S and design, shown below, for
“religious and charitable services-namely, the conduct of
religious meetings, the operation of hospitals, clinics,
maternity homes, settlements and day nurseries,
children’s homes, rehabilitation centers for alcoholics,
clubs for service men, missing persons bureaus, camps for
children and adults, and care for disaster victims,
unmarried mothers, prisoners and parolees and their
families, the aged, the homeless and the destitute,” in
International Class 42, claiming prior Reg. Nos. 807044
and 807391, issued on March 22, 1977, renewed

Reg. No. 1061877 for the mark THE SALVATION ARMY
BLOOD AND FIRE S and design, shown below, for
Serial No. 86150336
- 4 -
“religious and charitable services-namely, the conduct of
religious meetings, the operation of hospitals, clinics,
maternity homes, settlements and day nurseries,
children’s homes, rehabilitation centers for alcoholics,
clubs for service men, missing persons bureaus, camps for
children and adults, and care for disaster victims,
unmarried mothers, prisoners and parolees and their
families, the aged, the homeless and the destitute,” in
International Class 42, claiming prior Reg. Nos. 807077
and 807391, issued on March 22, 1977, renewed

Reg. No. 2517143 for the mark THE SALVATION ARMY
TREASURES FOR CHILDREN and design, shown below,
for “philanthropic services, namely, donations of toys for
children,” in International Class 42, issued on December
11, 2001, renewed

Reg. No. 2781882 for the mark THE LEARNING ZONE
THE SALVATION ARMY and design, shown below, for
“religious, educational, and charitable services, namely,
providing religious instruction; providing training in the
field of social services through nutrition, cooking,
budgeting, parenting, health and creative home decorating
classes; and providing academic mentoring to school age
children through after-school programs,” in International
Class 41, issued on November 11, 2003, renewed
Serial No. 86150336
- 5 -

Reg. No. 2973401 for the mark THE SALVATION ARMY
COMMUNITY CARE MINISTRIES for “religious and
charitable services, namely ministering to the spiritual and
social needs of people who are vulnerable to loneliness and
isolation because of age, disability, ill health or other
circumstances,” in International Class 45, claiming prior
Reg. Nos. 807044, 807391, 2517143, issued on July 19,
2005, renewed
Reg. No. 3044551 for the mark SHARING IS CARING
THE SALVATION ARMY and design, shown below, for
“charitable services, namely charitable fund raising for a
religious and charitable entity,” in International Class 36,
issued January 17, 2006, renewed

Reg. No. 4141158 for the mark IAST INITIATIVE
AGAINST SEXUAL TRAFFICKING THE SALVATION
ARMY and design, shown below, for “religious charitable
services, namely, providing information to the public
regarding sexual trafficking prevention, survivor
protection and exploiter prosecution,” in International
Class 45, claiming prior Reg. Nos. 807044, 2973401,
3044551, issued May 15, 2012
Serial No. 86150336
- 6 -

The following registrations are owned by the California corporation, The
Salvation Army:
Reg. No. 2674617 for the mark THE SALVATION ARMY
GIVING TREE for “Religious and charitable services,
namely, providing tags to be hung on trees that suggest
possible donations to be made by people selecting the tags
in order to provide gifts for needy individuals,” in
International Class 45, issued January 14, 2003, renewed
Reg. No. 3015499 for the mark THE SALVATION ARMY
ANGEL GIVING TREE for “religious and charitable
services, namely, providing tags to be displayed on trees
and renderings of trees that suggest possible donations to
be made by people selecting the tags in order to provide
gifts for needy individuals,” in International Class 45,
claiming prior Reg. No. 2674617, issued November 15,
2005, renewed
Reg. No. 3183140 for the mark THE SALVATION ARMY
RAY AND JOAN KROC CORPS COMMUNITY CENTER
for “religious and charitable services, namely providing a
facility for recreation and cultural arts activities; job
training programs in the fields of computer skills, culinary
arts, and employee behavioral skills; summer and
recreational camps for adults and children; religious
instruction program services; and providing toys and books
to needy persons,” in International Class 41, “religious and
charitable services, namely operating nurseries, daycare
centers, after-school daycare centers; daycare for the
elderly and community centers for religious and social
gatherings and meetings for seniors; and providing food to
needy people,” in International Class 43, “religious and
charitable services, namely conducting religious worship
services; providing spiritual counseling; providing clothing
Serial No. 86150336
- 7 -
to needy people; and ministerial counseling services in the
field of spiritual and social rehabilitation,” in International
Class 42, claiming prior Reg. Nos. 2674617 and 3015499,
issued December 12, 2006, renewed
Reg. No. 3189062 for the mark THE SALVATION ARMY
RAY AND JOAN KROC CORPS COMMUNITY CENTER
and design, shown below, for “religious and charitable
services, namely providing a facility for recreation and
cultural arts activities; job training programs in the fields
of computer skills, culinary arts, and employee behavioral
skills; summer and recreational camps for adults and
children; religious instruction program services; and
providing toys and books to needy persons,” in
International Class 41, “religious and charitable services,
namely operating nurseries, daycare centers, after-school
daycare centers; daycare for the elderly and community
centers for religious and social gatherings and meetings for
seniors; and providing food to needy people,” in
International Class 43, “religious and charitable services,
namely conducting religious worship services; providing
spiritual counseling; providing clothing to needy people;
and ministerial counseling services in the field of spiritual
and social rehabilitation,” in International Class 45, issued
on December 26, 2006, renewed

The following registrations are owned by the New Jersey corporation, The
Salvation Army National Corporation:
Reg. No. 4163803 for the mark THE SALVATION ARMY
for “religious and charitable services provided by Applicant
and Applicant's licensees, namely, job training programs in
the fields of computer skills, culinary arts, and employee
behavioral skills; summer and recreational camps for
adults and children; religious instruction program services;
and providing toys and books to needy persons,” in
International Class 41, “religious and charitable services
provided by Applicant and Applicant’s licensees, namely,
operating nurseries, daycare centers, after-school daycare
Serial No. 86150336
- 8 -
centers; daycare for the elderly and community centers for
religious and social gatherings and meetings for seniors;
providing temporary housing to needy people; providing
food to needy people and members of the military;
operating retirement homes; providing disaster relief
services in the nature of emergency shelter and temporary
housing,” in International Class 43, “religious and
charitable services provided by Applicant and Applicant's
licensees, namely, missing persons investigation;
conducting religious worship services; providing spiritual
counseling; providing clothing to needy people; ministerial
counseling services in the field of spiritual and social
rehabilitation; and operating residential spiritual
rehabilitation homes,” in International Class 45, issued
June 26, 2012
Reg. No. 4168081 for the mark ROCK THE RED KETTLE
THE SALVATION ARMY DOING THE MOST GOOD and
design, shown below, for “charitable fundraising services
by means of musical concerts held to promote fundraising
campaign of religious and charitable organization,” in
International Class 36, issued July 3, 2012

In addition, the Examining Attorney initially cited the following registrations,
also listing the registrant as The Salvation Army, but identified as an Illinois
corporation, as a bar to Applicant’s mark:
Reg. No. 1657612 for the mark THE SALVATION ARMY
CIRCLE OF CARING and design, shown below, for
“charitable fundraising services,” in International Class
36, issued on September 17, 1991, renewed
Serial No. 86150336
- 9 -

Reg. No. 2726323 for the mark THE SALVATION ARMY
LIGHT BRIGADE and design, shown below, for “religious
and charitable services namely supplying food to needy
families, giving parties for needy children, providing meals
and residential care for homeless men gifts for elderly shut-
ins, gifts for patients in hospitals, rest homes and
infirmaries gifts for imprisoned persons, dolls and toys for
underprivileged children and gift packages to members of
the armed forces,” in International Class 42, issued on
June 17, 2003, renewed

In the Final Office action, however, the Examining Attorney withdrew these latter
two citations “because applicant … clarified its status as a corporation formed under
the laws of Illinois, [and] applicant is clearly the owner of [these registrations].”2
When the likelihood of confusion refusal based on the other cited registrations was
made final, Applicant appealed and requested reconsideration. After the Examining
Attorney denied the request for reconsideration, the appeal was resumed and briefs
were filed. As explained below, we reverse the refusal to register because we find that
the Registrants in the three cited registrations and Applicant are entities governed

2 January 21, 2015 Office action, p. 1.
Serial No. 86150336
- 10 -
by a central authority, which exercises unity of control over the entities’ trademarks
and that this central control obviates any likelihood of confusion in the public mind
as to the source of the entities’ services.
Evidentiary Issue
With its brief Applicant submitted, for the first time, an exhibit titled “The
Salvation Army Graphic Standards and Guidelines Manual.” App. Br., 6 TTABVUE
13-53. The Examining Attorney has objected to this evidence as untimely. The
Examining Attorney’s objection is well taken. Trademark Rule 2.142(d) provides that
the record in the appeal should be complete prior to the filing of an appeal. We give
no consideration to the untimely evidence.
Unity of Control
Because the ultimate question raised in this appeal is whether there exists a
likelihood of confusion as to source, we address the Examining Attorney’s refusal by
analyzing whether there exists such unity of control over the marks in the involved
application and the cited registrations that the public will view the identified services
as emanating from a single source. Applicant argues that in the unique factual
circumstances presented here it and the cited Registrants satisfy the “unity of
control” test and their marks should be allowed to co-exist on the Register. In support
of its position that there is unity of control between Applicant and the three separate
Registrants Applicant submitted:
(1) a printout from the website salvationarmy.usa.org
titled “The Salvation Army – National Advisory Board,”
Serial No. 86150336
- 11 -
which has a listing and photo of the individual board
members;3
(2) a printout from the website salvationarmysouth.org
titled “Our Structure – The Salvation Army USA Official
Southern Territory Website,” which outlines the structure
of The Salvation Army southern territory;4
(3) a printout from the website salvationarmyusa.org titled
“The Salvation Army – Who We Are,” which provides
information about the different positions in the
organization and their roles (Commissioners, Salvation
Army Officers, Salvation Army Soldiers, National Advisory
Board, Volunteers);5
(4) a printout from the website salvationarmy.org.au titled
“Organisational structure of The Salvation Army,” which
shows the organizational structure of The Salvation Army
internationally and in Australia;6 and
(5) a printout from the website salvationarmy.org titled
“The Salvation Army International,” which describes the
history and mission of The Salvation Army worldwide.7
Applicant explains that it is one of The Salvation Army regional organizations and
“while decentralized into separate regional organizations, [The Salvation Army] is
under unitary control of the Salvation Army USA through the National Commander
USA and the Commissioners Conference USA.” App. Br., 6 TTABVUE 3 (citing the
Salvation Army USA website). Relying on In re Wella A.G., 5 USPQ2d 1359 (TTAB
1987) (“Wella II”), rev’d on other grounds, 858 F.2d 725, 8 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir.
1988), Applicant argues that “all regional entities are organized and follow directives

3 April 21, 2015 Response, pp. 2-5.
4 April 21, 2015 Response, pp. 6-8.
5 April 21, 2015 Response, pp. 9-11.
6 April 21, 2015 Response, pp. 12-19.
7 April 21, 2015 Response, pp. 20-21.
Serial No. 86150336
- 12 -
from a single source and adhere to the general policies established by the
International Headquarters [and] the national policy is established by the
commissioners’ Conference.” App. Br., 6 TTABVUE 5 (citing The Salvation Army
USA’s and The Salvation Army International’s – “About Us” websites). Applicant also
points to its “‘quasi-military command structure’ that enhances the organizational
nature, supporting the fact that the Army is indeed, a single source despite the legal
entity arrangements.” Id. (quoting the website The Salvation Army International –
About Us.).8
Finally, in support of its position, Applicant points to the 15 registrations (the
originally cited registrations which include two of Applicant’s prior registrations) that
incorporate THE SALVATION ARMY mark, requesting that because the USPTO has
“recognized and allowed registration from multiple regional entities” that this
application be “so recognized presently.” App. Br., 6 TTABVUE 4.9
The Examining Attorney argues that the arrangement Applicant describes fails
to meet the requirements of Wella II. Ex. Att. Br., 8 TTABVUE 10. The Examining
Attorney views Applicant and the cited Registrants as “sister entities” that “are not
even owned by a common parent.” Id. Arguing that the “regional entities appear to

8 Applicant further explains that the National Command, in the United States, “exercises
control with respect to branding decisions.” Id. However, this specific statement about
“branding decisions” is unsupported inasmuch as it relies on the untimely-submitted
evidence.
9 Applicant further argues that it is the owner of the cited registrations because of unity of
control. Allowance of a registration in the name of another entity under the concept of unity
of control does not mean the new registrant owns the other registrants’ registrations or the
reverse. Rather, it simply recognizes that despite ownership of registrations residing in
different but related entities, there will be no confusion as to source.
Serial No. 86150336
- 13 -
operate largely autonomously while adhering to the directives and general policies of
a broader or national entity,” the Examining Attorney concludes that they are “even
less of a single source than sister corporations owned by a common parent.” Id.
The Examining Attorney contends that the evidence of record does not establish
unity of control. Specifically, he argues:
This general overview of the Salvation Army hierarchical
structure is not seen to support a unity of control which
creates a single source for trademark purposes. It does not
provide detailed evidence how one party controls the
trademark activities of the others to establish a unity of
control such that the parties would constitute a single
source, as discussed in Wella, supra. … The evidence
considered as a whole presents a diffuse organization
which lacks a demonstrated organizational unity of control
over the use of trademarks such that applicant and the
various registrants constitute a single source.
Ex. Att. Br., 8 TTABVUE 11, 12.
Finally, with regard to the argument that the USPTO has already registered the
marks under different owners, the Examining Attorney points out for the first time
in his brief that:
[T]he two most recent cited registrations, Reg. Nos.
4163803 and 4168081, each contain a Consent Agreement
signed by the various Salvation Army affiliated
organizations, including the applicant herein, each being
owners of various Salvation Army marks largely or wholly
cited herein. Said agreements, which appear to have been
peremptorily filed to avoid refusals under Section 2(d) of
the Trademark Act, have not been noted or otherwise made
of record in the current application record, nor do they
reference the within application … Thus, contrary to the
applicant’s assertion, the present refusal is in fact
consistent with the recent activity of the USPTO to
establish a sound basis for allowing these Salvation Army
marks owned by different parties, along with any similarly
owned Salvation Army marks filed in the future, to coexist
Serial No. 86150336
- 14 -
on the register. Therefore, absent the execution and
submission of such a consent agreement in this case, the
Section 2(d) refusal has not been obviated and must be
maintained.
Ex. Att. Br., 8 TTABVUE 12-13.10
In Wella, the applicant Wella A.G. had sought to register the mark
WELLASTRATE for hair care products. The examining attorney refused registration
under Section 2(d) in view of the marks WELLA, WELLASOL, WELLA STREAK and
WELLATONE for various hair care products, all registered in the name of Wella
Corporation (Wella U.S.), a subsidiary of Wella A.G. When an appeal was taken, the
Board affirmed the refusal to register. The Board held that Section 2(d) of the
Trademark Act bars registration of a mark that so resembles a mark registered or
used “by another” as to be likely to cause confusion and that, because Wella U.S. was
a separate legal entity from Wella A.G., Wella U.S. was “another” within the meaning
of Section 2(d) and Wella A.G. was not entitled to registration of the mark
WELLASTRATE. Wella A.G. appealed the Board’s decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit, our primary reviewing court. The Federal Circuit
vacated the Board’s decision and remanded the application to the Board for further
action in accordance with its opinion. In remanding the case for further action, the
Federal Circuit stated:
The question is whether, despite the similarity of the
marks and the goods on which they are used, the public is
likely to be confused about the source of the hair
straightening products carrying the trademark

10 The file records in Reg. Nos. 4163803 and 4168081 referred to by the Examining Attorney
are not of record. In re Sela Prods. LLC, 107 USPQ2d 1580, 1583 (TTAB 2013) (cited
registration file not automatically of record).
Serial No. 86150336
- 15 -
“WELLASTRATE.” In other words, is the public likely to
believe that the source of the product is Wella U.S. rather
than the German company or the Wella organization. … If
the Wella family of marks connotes to consumers only a
single source for all Wella products, namely the Wella
organization, it is difficult to see how Wella A.G.’s use of
the mark “WELLASTRATE” would cause confusion as to
source because of Wella U.S.’s use of other Wella marks.
In re Wella A.G., 787 F.2d 1549, 229 USPQ 274, 276 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In addition, the Federal Circuit criticized the Board’s decision for affirming the
refusal to register under Section 2(d) without determining “whether under the
circumstances there was in fact any likelihood of confusion, or to explain what that
confusion would be.” Id. at 277. On remand, the Board reversed the Section 2(d)
refusal, stating at 5 USPQ2d at 1361 that:
[A] determination must be made as to whether there exists
a likelihood of confusion as to source, that is, whether
purchasers would believe that particular goods or services
emanate from a single source, when in fact those goods or
services emanate from more than a single source. Clearly,
the Court views the concept of “source” as encompassing
more than “legal entity.” Thus, in this case, we are required
to determine whether Wella A.G. and Wella U.S. are the
same source or different sources. If we find that the two
entities are the same source, there could, of course, be no
confusion as to source, and the refusal under Section 2(d)
may not stand. The question of whether Wella U.S. and
Wella A.G. are the same source is a question of fact.
The existence of a related company relationship between
Wella U.S. and Wella A.G. is not, in itself, a basis for
finding that any “WELLA” product emanating from either
of the two companies emanates from the same source.
Besides the existence of a legal relationship, there must
also be a unity of control over the use of the trademarks.
“Control” and “source” are inextricably linked. If,
notwithstanding the legal relationship between entities,
each entity exclusively controls the nature and quality of
the goods to which it applies one or more of the various
Serial No. 86150336
- 16 -
“WELLA” trademarks, the two entities are in fact separate
sources. Wella A.G. has made of record a declaration of the
executive vice president of Wella U.S., which declaration
states that Wella A.G. owns substantially all the
outstanding stock of Wella U.S. and “thus controls the
activities and operations of Wella U.S., including the
selection, adoption and use of the trademarks.” While the
declaration contains no details of how this control is
exercised, the declaration is sufficient, absent
contradictory evidence in the record, to establish that
control over the use of all the “WELLA” trademarks in the
United States resides in a single source.
Thus, in “Wella this ‘unity of control’ was sufficiently evidenced by a declaration
establishing that the applicant, Wella AG, owned substantially all the outstanding
stock of the registrant, Wella (USA). However, what establishes ‘unity of control’
depends on the circumstances in every case.” In re Wacker Neuson SE, 97 USPQ2d
1408, 1413 (TTAB 2010). In certain circumstances, “where there is a relationship, but
perhaps not the level of ‘unity of control’ envisioned by the Wella doctrine, a consent
from the related company may suffice.” In re Wacker Neuson SE, 97 USPQ2d at 1413.
The Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (“TMEP”) provides further
guidance on how an applicant may show that there is unity of control:
If neither the applicant nor the registrant owns all or
substantially all of the other entity, and USPTO records do
not show their joint ownership of the application or cited
registration (see TMEP § 1201.07(b)(ii)), the applicant
bears a more substantial burden to establish that unity of
control is present. For instance, if both the applicant and
the registrant are wholly owned by a third common parent,
the applicant would have to provide detailed evidence to
establish how one sister corporation controlled the
trademark activities of the other to establish unity of
control to support the contention that the sister
corporations constitute a single source. See In re
Pharmacia Inc., 2 USPQ2d 1883 (TTAB 1987); Greyhound
Corp. v. Armour Life Ins. Co., 214 USPQ 473 (TTAB 1982).
Serial No. 86150336
- 17 -
Likewise, where an applicant and registrant have certain
stockholders, directors, or officers in common, the
applicant must demonstrate with detailed evidence or
explanation how those relationships establish unity of
control. See Pneutek, Inc. v. Scherr, 211 USPQ 824 (TTAB
1981). The applicant’s evidence or explanation should
generally be supported by an affidavit or a declaration
under 37 C.F.R. §2.20.
TMEP § 1201.07(b)(iii) (April 2016).
During prosecution, the Examining Attorney did not take issue with the form or
veracity of the evidence; rather, he found that the structure of the organization, as
revealed by the evidence, does not “support unity of control which creates a single
source for Trademark purposes.” September 2, 2015 Denial of Request for
Reconsideration. In making this observation, the Examining Attorney cites to TMEP
§ 1201.03(c).11 However, this section of the TMEP concerns whether entity A may rely
on the use of a mark by entity B as use to support entity A’s application, i.e., that B’s
use inures to A’s benefit. By contrast, the concept of “unity of control” focuses on
whether there will be likely confusion as to source. While TMEP § 1201.07(b)(iii)
discusses a somewhat similar concept with sister corporations and it is important to
have detailed information about the structure of an organization and how the mark
points to one source, the concept of “unity of control” is not limited to certain

11 Section 1201.03 is titled “Use by Related Companies.” Section 1201.03(d) provides: The fact
that two sister corporations are controlled by a single parent corporation does not mean that
they are related companies. Where two corporations are wholly owned subsidiaries of a
common parent, use by one sister corporation is not considered to inure to the benefit of the
other, unless the applicant sister corporation exercises appropriate control over the nature
and quality of the goods or services on or in connection with which the mark is used. Great
Seats, Ltd. v. Great Seats, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1235, 1242 (TTAB 2007); In re Pharmacia Inc., 2
USPQ2d 1883, 1884 (TTAB 1987); Greyhound Corp. v. Armour Life Ins. Co., 214 USPQ 473,
475 (TTAB 1982).
Serial No. 86150336
- 18 -
organizational structures; thus, merely because an arrangement does not fall within
a set type of organization does not preclude a finding that there is unity of control.
Applicant has stated, through the representations of its attorney that The
Salvation Army is a worldwide organization headquartered in London and the United
States affiliate is divided into four regions all under the control of the National
Command in a quasi-military structure. Applicant provided evidence from the
website of its International Headquarters that supports these representations. For
example,
The Salvation Army in the United States is divided into
four territories. The national commander and the national
chief secretary serve in coordinating capacities. Each
territorial commander operates under the general policies
laid down by International Headquarters in London,
England.
National policy is established by the commissioner’s
Conference, over which the national commander presides.
While the local leadership adjust to meet conditions in each
community, all officers are subject to the same broad,
overall policies;12 and
The Salvation Army is an integral part of the Christian
Church, although distinctive in government and practice.
… The rapid deployment of the first Salvationists was
aided by the adoption of a quasi-military command
structure in 1879 when the title, “The Salvation Army”,
was brought into use. A similarly practical organisation
today enables resources to be equally flexible.13

12 www.salvationarmysouth.org, April 21, 2015 Response, pp. 6-7.
13 www.salvationarmy.org, id. at 20. While this website is from the International
Headquarters, which is reflected in the British spelling of “organization,” it is directed and
available to anyone interested in learning more about The Salvation Army, including people
residing in the United States (as shown by the hyperlink on the salvationarmyusa.org
website Id. at 11). Moreover, as noted above, Applicant is providing information about an
international organization.
Serial No. 86150336
- 19 -
It is preferable that salient factual information be submitted in the form of an
affidavit or declaration signed by an officer of the applicant, rather than by attorney
representations. See, e.g., In re Highlights for Children, Inc., 118 USPQ2d 1268, 1276
(TTAB 2016); In re U.S. Tsubaki, Inc., 109 USPQ2d 2002, 2006 (TTAB 2014); In re
EBSCO Indus., Inc., 41 USPQ2d 1917, 1923 n.5 (TTAB 1997). However, because
Applicant has provided information regarding the Salvation Army organization,
evidence in the record supports these statements, there is nothing in the record that
contradicts Applicant’s attorney’s statements and the information provided is
credible, we accept them as factual support for the common organizational structure
and control of The Salvation Army.14 In re First Draft Inc., 76 USPQ2d 1183, 1185
n.3 (TTAB 2005) (Board considered representations by applicant’s counsel because
examining attorney did not object to them and they were not contradicted by anything
in the record). See also In re Sela Prods. LLC, 107 USPQ2d at 1584 (evidentiary
requirements in ex parte prosecution are not as stringent as those in inter partes
proceedings, which generally follow the Federal Rules of Evidence).

14 We further note counsel’s duty of “candor toward the tribunal” as set out in Rule § 11.303,
which provides in pertinent part: (a) A practitioner shall not knowingly: (1) Make a false
statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or
law previously made to the tribunal by the practitioner … (3) Offer evidence that the
practitioner knows to be false. … (d) In an ex parte proceeding, a practitioner shall inform
the tribunal of all material facts known to the practitioner that will enable the tribunal to
make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.” 37 CFR § 11.303.
Serial No. 86150336
- 20 -
Moreover, Applicant already owns three registrations for charitable services with
the wording “The Salvation Army” (the earliest dating from 1991);15 these have
coexisted for over five years with the other registrations, dating from 1977, that are
owned by the other Salvation Army entities incorporated in New York, California,
and New Jersey. Thus, the record reveals a long practice of the Registrants and
Applicant registering their various The Salvation Army marks and which, taken
together with the other evidence, further supports a finding that The Salvation Army
constitutes a single source. In re Wella, 229 USPQ at 276. Cf. In re Strategic Partners
Inc., 102 USPQ2d 1397 (TTAB 2012) (coexistence of applicant’s existing registration
with cited registration for over five years and, thus, not subject to attack by owner of
cited registration on a claim of likelihood of confusion, considered under thirteenth
du Pont factor to outweigh the other factors in finding no likelihood of confusion).
It is important to have guidelines as to how entities may demonstrate unity of
control, Wella II, 5 USPQ2d at 1361, TMEP § 1201.07(b)(iii), but each case should be
evaluated on its own particular set of facts. This case presents a unique situation in
which we find there would not be a likelihood of confusion as to source. As the Federal
Circuit stated, the question is “whether under the circumstances there was in fact
any likelihood of confusion” and “to explain what that confusion would be.” In re
Wella, 229 USPQ at 277. Based on this record and the unique organizational

15 Reg. Nos. 1657612, 2726323 and 3360432. Reg. No. 3360432 is for the identical mark for
“charitable services, namely, solicitation and collection of donated coats for use by needy
children.”
Serial No. 86150336
- 21 -
structure of the Salvation Army, it is not possible to explain what that confusion
would be.
Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s mark is reversed.