IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—T.T.A.B.: LAFOND mark was merely a surname, not registerable, (Oct 3, 2023)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

Denial of registration was affirmed for the mark LAFOND, used with fruit products, because it would be perceived as primarily merely a surname.

A seller of fruit products was not able to register its proposed mark because it would be perceived as primarily merely a surname, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has held. The proposed mark was somewhat uncommon as a surname but had no other possible meanings (In re: St. Dalfour International Inc., September 21, 2023, Casagrande, T.).

St. Dalfour International, Incorporated (Dalfour) sought registration on the Principal Register for the standard character mark LAFOND for a variety of fruit conserves, preserves and related products International Classes 29 and 30. The Examining Attorney refused registration on the ground that the proposed mark was primarily merely a surname. Dalfour appealed. The board considered the Benthin factors.

Public exposure. Dalfour argued that the name was uncommon, showing internet databases with relatively few, but still thousands, of results for that surname. The board held, however, that even a rare surname is still “primarily merely a surname” and thus not registerable if its primary significance to consumers is that of a surname. The board found that consumers would likely be exposed to it as a surname.

Connection to applicant. There was no evidence that anyone involved in the application had the surname Lafond, but the board held that this was of minimal probative value. The fact that nobody involved actually had the surname did not influence whether the public would perceive the mark as a surname. This factor was neutral.

Other meanings. With the exception of one apparently joking entry on urbandictionary.com, and an apparently unrelated French phrase “le fond” there was no showing of other meanings that the word lafond could possess except the surname. The court held that this factor weighed in favor of the mark being perceived as a surname.

Structure and pronunciation. The board noted that there was little evidence on this factor, but that similar surnames such as Lafon and Lafont existed. This factor also supported the finding that it would be perceived as a surname.

Balancing the factors, the board affirmed the refusal to register.

The Case is Serial No. 90527587.

Attorneys: Anthony Giaccio (Giaccio LLC) for St. Dalfour International Inc. Claudia A. Kopenski for the USPTO.

Companies: St. Dalfour International Inc.

Cases: Trademark USPTO