Truth For Life

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 24, 1998

No. 75008361 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 1998)

Hearing: Paper No.
October 8, 1997 ejs
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB AUG. 24, 98
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Truth For Life
________
Serial Nos. 75/008,361 and 75/008,521
_______
Robert V. Vickers of Vickers, Daniels & Young for Truth for
Life
Anthony Masiello, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
104 (Sidney Moskowitz, Managing Attorney)
_______
Before Sams, Seeherman and Quinn, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Seeherman, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Truth For Life has applied to register TRUTH FOR LIFE
as a trademark for “pre-recorded audio tapes dealing with
religion”1 and as a service mark for “entertainment in the
nature of ongoing religious radio programs.”2 In both

1 Application Serial No. 75/998,521, filed October 23 1995, and
asserting first use and first use in commerce in April 1992.
2 Application Serial No. 75/008,361, filed October 23, 1995, and
asserting first use and first use in interstate commerce in April
1992.
Ser. Nos. 75/008,361
and 75/008,521
2
cases, registration was refused by the Examining Attorney
pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.
1052(d), on the ground that applicant’s mark, when used on
its identified goods and services, so resembles the mark
TRUTH OF LIFE MOVEMENT, previously registered (with the word
MOVEMENT disclaimed) by the same entity for “religious
booklets published periodically”3 and for “religious
educational instruction services,”4 as to be likely to cause
confusion or mistake or to deceive.
When the refusals in both applications were made final,
applicant appealed. Applicant and the Examining Attorney
filed briefs, and applicant requested that, in addition to
its reply brief, we consider a supplemental reply brief. We
hereby exercise our discretion and grant that motion.
Applicant and the Examining Attorney also appeared at an
oral hearing before this Board.
Because the issues and record in both applications are
similar, we decide the appeals in a single opinion.
Turning first to a consideration of the goods and
services, we find that applicant’s identified audio tapes
dealing with religion and its religious radio programs to be
closely related to the registrant’s identified religious

3 Registration No. 1,083,956, issued January 31, 1978, Sections
8 and 15 affidavit accepted.
4 Registration No. 1,094,031, issued June 20, 1978, Sections 8
and 15 affidavit accepted.
Ser. Nos. 75/008,361
and 75/008,521
3
booklets and religious educational instruction services.
Both applicant’s and the registrant’s goods and services
deal with the subject of religion, whether through audio
tapes, booklets, radio programs or educational instruction.
The Examining Attorney has made of record a number of third-
party registrations which show that the registrants have
registered their respective marks for, inter alia, booklets
and educational materials in the nature of Bible studies and
production of radio programs of a religious nature5
videotapes and pamphlets featuring religious instruction, a
radio program featuring religious instruction, and providing
religious seminars6, prerecorded audio cassettes featuring
religious educational materials, inspirational books and
pamphlets, radio broadcasts featuring religion, and
conducting seminars in the field of religion7; and religious
radio and television programs, magazines dealing with
religion, and audio and video cassettes dealing with
religion.8 These registrations serve to suggest that the
listed goods and/or services are of a type which may emanate
from a single source. See In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co.,
29 USPQ2d 1783 (TTAB 1993).

5 Registration No. 1,928,405.
6 Registration No. 1,873,643.
7 Registration No. 1,695,893.
8 Registration No. 1,332,925.
Ser. Nos. 75/008,361
and 75/008,521
4
Applicant does not dispute the related nature of the
goods and services. Rather, it argues that confusion is not
likely to occur because of the differences in the marks.
Applicant’s mark is TRUTH FOR LIFE; the cited mark is
TRUTH OF LIFE MOVEMENT. Although close examination reveals
that there are differences in the marks in terms of the
small preposition between the words TRUTH and LIFE, and the
additional word MOVEMENT in the cited mark, we do not find
that these differences are sufficient to distinguish the
marks. As applicant itself has noted, “Life” and “Truth”
identify common religious themes. It is these words, rather
than the two or three letter preposition that connects them,
that consumers will note and remember when they view the
marks. Further, it is these words which stand out when the
marks are pronounced.
Applicant has argued that the marks have different
connotations, that TRUTH OF LIFE MOVEMENT suggests an
organization that seeks to find the true meaning of life,
while applicant’s mark, TRUTH FOR LIFE, “will be understood
to refer to the Truth revealed by Jesus Christ which is
necessary for living a proper life.” Brief, p. 6. We are
not persuaded by this argument. Although these may be the
meanings attributed to the marks by applicant and its
attorney, there is no evidence to suggest that in general
the consumers of the various identified goods and services
Ser. Nos. 75/008,361
and 75/008,521
5
would understand the marks to have these connotations.
Because of the significance of the concepts of “Truth” and
“Life”, TRUTH OF LIFE MOVEMENT and TRUTH FOR LIFE are likely
to viewed by many consumers as having the same significance
when used with the particular religiously themed goods or
services, namely, that there are certain religious truths
which govern peoples’ lives.
Applicant has also argued, in its supplemental reply
brief, that the word MOVEMENT also distinguishes the marks
because “anyone in religion is very careful in joining
themselves to a ‘Movement’ and all of the negative
implications (or positive implications) that a ‘Movement’
implies.” p. 1. Applicant elaborated on this comment at
the oral hearing, stating that the word MOVEMENT implies a
cult. However, applicant has provided no evidence that
MOVEMENT would have such a connotation. The definition of
the word “Movement” which is most relevant to the identified
goods and services are “a diffusely organized or
heterogeneous group of people or organizations tending
toward or favoring a generalized common goal: the
antislavery movement; the realistic movement in art,” that
goal being, in the case of goods and services of a religious
nature, certain moral precepts.9 Thus, based on the

9 The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 2d ed.,
unabridged, 1987. The Board may take judicial notice of
dictionary listings. University of Notre Dame du Lac v. J. C.
Ser. Nos. 75/008,361
and 75/008,521
6
evidence of record, we find that the marks TRUTH OF LIFE
MOVEMENT and TRUTH FOR LIFE would convey similar meanings to
consumers.
Further, although the word MOVEMENT at the end of the
cited mark results in that mark’s being longer by one word
and two syllables than applicant’s mark, its presence is not
sufficient to distinguish the marks. It is well established
that, although marks must be compared in their entireties,
there is nothing improper in stating that, for rational
reasons, more or less weight has been given to a particular
feature of a mark. In re National Data Corp.¸753 F.2d 1056,
2224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “Movement,” because of its
descriptive meaning in terms of religious activities, will
not be accorded as great a source-identifying weight by
consumers as will the words TRUTH and LIFE. In this
connection, we note that the registrant has disclaimed
exclusive rights to the word “Movement,” thus admitting its
descriptive significance.
Applicant states that “no one party has the exclusive
right to use the words ‘truth,’ ‘life’ or ‘movement’ in
connection with religion,” brief, p. 5, and therefore
asserts that the fact that both marks contain the words
TRUTH and LIFE is not a sufficient basis on which to find

Gourmet Food Imports Co., Inc., 213 USPQ 594 (TTAB 1982), aff’d,
703 F.2d 1372, 217 USPQ 505 (Fed Cir. 1983).
Ser. Nos. 75/008,361
and 75/008,521
7
confusion. However, our conclusion that the marks are
confusingly similar is not based on this fact alone. These
words appear in each mark in the same manner, i.e., each
begins with the word TRUTH, followed by a small, rather
insignificant single-syllable preposition, followed in turn
by the word LIFE. These similarities in the marks, thus, go
beyond the inclusion of the words TRUTH and LIFE, and
include their structure and pronunciation.
We have considered the third-party registrations made
of record by applicant, but only one, BRINGING TRUTH TO
LIFE, includes both the word TRUTH and the word LIFE. This
mark is certainly far different from either applicant’s or
the registrant’s marks than applicant’s and the registrant’s
marks are from each other.
Applicant argues that, because religion is so
important, consumers will exercise a great degree of care in
making a decision to purchase an item connected with
religion. Applicant also argues that there are many
religions in existence, many of which have similar names,
but that consumers “will not be confused and attend the
wrong church or purchase the wrong books merely because the
names of the religions have some words in common” because
the decision is too important to be made carelessly. Brief,
p. 3. In support of this argument, applicant has submitted
pages from yellow pages directories which list churches.
Ser. Nos. 75/008,361
and 75/008,521
8
There are several difficulties with applicant’s
argument. First, while consumers may choose the church
which they attend with care, the goods and services at issue
are not church services. Rather, applicant’s goods are pre-
recorded audio tapes dealing with religion, and religious
radio programs. Audio tapes are inexpensive items, while
radio programs can be accessed without any charge at all.
Further, although churches may operate under very similar
names, such that people learn to distinguish one church from
another based on small differences in the marks, applicant
has provided no evidence that items of a religious nature,
i.e., audio tapes, radio programs, booklets and educational
instruction, are sold or offered by many different
organizations under very similar marks.
On this record, we simply cannot conclude that
purchasers of the applicant’s and registrant’s goods and
services would be so careful about making the decision to
purchase audio tapes or booklets, or to listen to a radio
program, that they would recognize the differences in the
marks and conclude that they identified separate sources.
On the contrary, we believe that someone who is familiar
with the registrant’s religious booklets or religious
educational instruction services sold or rendered under the
mark TRUTH OF LIFE MOVEMENT might well, upon encountering
applicant’s audio tapes sold under the mark TRUTH FOR LIFE,
Ser. Nos. 75/008,361
and 75/008,521
9
or finding a radio program called TRUTH FOR LIFE, assume
that the audio tapes or program was connected with the
registrant.
Decision: The refusal of registration is affirmed.
J. D. Sams
E. J. Seeherman
T. J. Quinn
Administrative Trademark Judges
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board