In two decisions issued on the same day, the Board found the
proposed mark AMERICAN OUTDOOR BRANDS CORPORATION
to be primarily geographically descriptive of various goods and
services mostly related to firearms [BRANDS CORPORATION
disclaimed]. It therefore affirmed Section 2(d) refusals of the
standard character form of the mark in one application and likewise
affirmed refusals of the word-plus-design mark shown below in 29
applications absent a disclaimer of the entire phrase. The Board
also affirmed the rejection of Applicant's claim of acquired
distinctiveness under Section 2(f). In re American Outdoor
Brands Corporation, Serial Nos. 87228558 et al. and Serial Nos. 87305138 et al. (April 14, 2020) [not
precedential] (Opinion by Judge Michael B. Adlin).
Geographical Descriptiveness: Examining Attorney Bianca Allen maintained that AMERICAN OUTDOOR BRANDS CORPORATION is a combination of a geographically descriptive word (AMERICAN) and a term that merely describes the provider of the involved goods and services, or those goods and services themselves (OUTDOOR BRANDS CORPORATION). Applicant argued that the phrase is "amorphous, conveying nothing specific, but conjuring up a sense of freedom – a calling to unexplored places." According to applicant, its meaning differs for every consumer: "It could be the Colorado Rockies, the California Redwoods, the Shenandoah Valley, or Central Park in New York City. It means nowhere in particular."
The Board, however, found that AMERICAN OUTDOOR BRANDS CORPORATION is geographically descriptive because AMERICAN is a geographically descriptive term combined with terms that are "at best" merely descriptive of Applicant's goods and services. "[N]ot only has Applicant failed to introduce any evidence that AMERICAN has a non-geographic meaning in the context of its goods or services, but Applicant's own use of the term reveals that AMERICAN is used in its geographic sense."
The involved applications and the USPTO's evidence of record showed that applicant is based in the United States (Springfield, Massachusetts) and manufactures goods and provides services there. Consumers would believe that Applicant's goods and services originate in America. Thus the three elements of the Section 2(e)(2) test were satisfied.
Acquired Distinctiveness: The Board first determined that AMERICAN OUTDOOR BRANDS CORPORATION is "highly geographically descriptive, as it identifies the geographic origin of the goods and services offered by Applicant's outdoor brands." Accordingly, applicant's burden of proof to show acquired distinctiveness is "concomitantly high." In re Steelbuilding, 75 USPQ2d at 1424.
Applicant's evidence on this issue was "substantively sparse." It included a declaration from an officer of the company stating that the proposed mark "has acquired distinctiveness for financial information services and for shareholder and investor relations services." However, the evidence regarding same failed to establish public recognition of the mark as a source indicator for those services. Applicant's remaining applications, which concerned its "outdoor-focused products and services," were based on intent-to-use. Applicant argued that the supposed acquired distinctiveness for its financial services transferred to its outdoor goods and services, but the Board shot that down.
There was no evidence that applicant's financial services were related "in any way" to its outdoor-focused products and services, and so this argument also misfired.
Conclusion: The Board affirmed all of the refusals to register, but allowed applicant thirty days to submit the appropriate disclaimer of AMERICAN OUTDOOR BRANDS CORPORATION in the word-plus-design applications.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.