IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Denial of registration of mark for hockey training organization affirmed, (Sep 17, 2026)

By Joe Cox, J.D.

The Board considered several DuPont factors to arrive at a likelihood of confusion as grounds for denial.

The Trademark Trail and Appeal Board (TTAB) has affirmed the non-registration of a mark APX in regard to a hockey training organization on the ground that the mark, when used in connection with the services in question, is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception with the registered mark APX in standard characters for "consulting service in the fields of fitness and exercise.” An Examining Attorney denied a request for reconsideration and on appeal, the TTAB affirmed the prior ruling (In re MAP Elite & MAP Prospects LLC, No. 98651023 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2026)).

Background for the Ruling. MAP Elite & MAP Prospects, LLC were the applicants in this matter. They sought registration of their APX logo in the field of “sports training services in the field of hockey training programs; sports training services in the field of competitive hockey player development and training programs.” The logo also contained, in smaller print, the words “Advanced Player EXP” but the phrase “Advanced Player” had been disclaimed.

The discussion centered on the second and third DuPont factors—the similarity or dissimilarity and nature of the goods or services as described and the similarity or dissimilarity of established, likely-to-continue trade channels. Evidence included websites for several businesses that offered hockey training services as well as general fitness and exercise programs, including in a studio or health club environment, under a single mark or hockey-specific consulting services in the fields of fitness and exercise, under a single mark. The link of sports training services in the field of hockey and consulting services in the fields of fitness and exercise, including specifically for hockey players was further demonstrated with another lengthy list of websites for businesses reflecting those links.

While the applicant argued that these businesses were not identical to the proposed offering, the Board noted that they did not need to be identical, but “for confusion to be likely, the services need only be related in the sense that consumers could mistakenly believe that the services originate from the same source.” The applicant also sought to differentiate its services by noting they were provided in an ice rink, but there was nothing in the registration to so limit the services, so the potential for confusion remained. The applicant additionally argued their services were restricted to “skilled hockey players” but the Board found no evidence of such a limitation being read into the registration in question.

The remainder of the discussion was devoted to the first DuPont factor—the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks. The Examining Attorney previously determined that the marks were confusingly similar because the applicant’s mark incorporates the Cited Mark of APX in standard characters in its entirety, and APX was the dominant element of the applied-for mark. While the applicant argued that the Examining Attorney failed to consider the entirety of the applicant’s mark, the Board did not find that persuasive. The proposed mark did include an American flag background, but of course, the Board noted that the Cited Mark could be displayed in any manner, including a manner similar to the applied-for mark. The Board stated that “considering Applicant’s mark as a whole, the eye is drawn to the letters APX, which are most likely to be impressed upon a purchaser’s memory and used to identify the source of the services.”

The opinion turned briefly to the fourth DuPont factor—“[t]he conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are made, i.e. ‘impulse’ vs. careful, sophisticated purchasing.” While the applicant argued these services are for advanced players and would be carefully considered, the Board observed that the applicant’s services were “broad enough to include participants of all skill and interest levels.” While the Board acknowledged that this factor weighed slightly against a likelihood of confusion, in light of the other factors, confusion was likely and the refusal to issue the requested mark was affirmed.

The Case is Serial No. 98651023.

Judge: O’Connor, C.

Attorneys: Deirdre M. Kvale (DMK Intellectual Property Law PLLC) for Map Elite & Map Prospects LLC. Sandra Snabb for the USPTO.

Companies: Map Elite & Map Prospects LLC

Cases: Trademark USPTO