IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Fidelity & Guaranty's specimen sufficient to register ‘Hindsight 20/20’ mark, TTAB rules, (May 9, 2025)

By Steven Melendez

An examining attorney had found the specimen provided didn't adequately show an association between the mark and claimed services.

Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance Company may register its service mark HINDSIGHT 20/20, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) ruled, overturning an examining attorney's refusal to register the mark after she found a submitted specimen insufficiently tied to Fidelity & Guaranty's services (In re Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance Co., No. 97239785 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2025)).

The company initially had applied to register the mark HINDSIGHT 20/20 for “insurance services, namely, underwriting, issuing and administration of life insurance; underwriting, issuance and administration of annuities," providing copies of pages from its website as specimens demonstrating the mark's use. The web pages refer to a "Hindsight 20/20 strategy" for annuity investment allocations, with performance linked to the best-performing of three market indexes.

But the examining attorney argued that the specimens showed the mark being used for "a method and/or strategy for investing funds" rather than for the specified "insurance services," with nothing to create a "sufficient nexus" between the mark and the services.

Fidelity & Guaranty then simplified its application’s description of services to refer simply to “insurance services, namely, administration of life insurance; administration of annuities" and argued the examining attorney should take a broader view of the term "administration." The examining attorney maintained that the mark's use refers to "investment strategy" rather than "insurance administration services," according to the ruling. The examining attorney refused registration under Sections 1 and 45 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 and 1127, on the ground that Fidelity & Guaranty’s specimen did not show a direct association between the mark and the services.

On appeal, Fidelity & Guaranty argued that "administration" includes "arrangements and tasks needed to control the operation" of an annuity plan, which includes determining what index to use for a particular annuity option. Administration includes "strategy planning," the company contends, and customers wouldn't be able to select the plan with that particular strategy without Fidelity & Guaranty's administration of it. Passive administration, according to Fidelity & Guaranty, is one option often geared around investment of a portfolio into market index-linked funds.

The TTAB panel found that the specimen did mention "life insurance, premiums, and investment options," and referenced the company by full name, so consumers will know it's an advertisement form a life insurance company. And the use of terminology like "strategy" and "approach" don't limit the mark or distort consumer perception away from the claimed services, according to the ruling.

"The literature submitted by Applicant indicates that relevant consumers would perceive the mark as indicating a passive administration option as part of Applicant’s offering of annuities," according to the ruling.

Despite not explicitly using the term "annuity," the specimen did have enough information to create an association between the mark and administration of annuities, the Board found, enough to meet legal requirements and allow for the mark's registration.

The Case is Serial No. 97239785.

Judge: Coggins, R.

Attorneys: Jon A. Schiffrin (Schiffrin & Longo, P.C.) for Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance Co. Christina Bellotti for the USPTO.

Companies: Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance Co.

Cases: Trademark USPTO