IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: KINGS ARMOR mark for various apparel products succumbs to cancellation challenge, (Apr 3, 2025)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

UNDER ARMOUR and KINGS ARMOR are more similar than dissimilar in terms of appearance, sound, and commercial impression, and the similarities weigh in favor of a likelihood of confusion.

In a nonprecedential decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) granted the petition for cancellation of Valiant Praize Productions LLC’s registration under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act. Applying the DuPont factors, the TTAB found that a likelihood of confusion exists between Valiant Praize Productions LLC’s mark KINGS ARMOR and Under Armour, Inc.’s mark UNDER ARMOUR, both used for clothing (Under Armour, Inc. v. Valiant Praize Productions LLC, No. 92082443 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2025)).

Background. Valiant Praize Productions LLC (Valiant Praize) owns a Principal Register registration (Reg. No. 6969742) for the mark KINGS ARMOR (in standard characters) for various apparel products in International Class 25. Under Armour, Inc. (Under Armour) owns more than 20 registrations for UNDER ARMOUR and ARMOUR formatives, including Reg. No. 2279668 for the standard character UNDER ARMOUR mark, for various clothing items, including hats and t-shirts, also in International Class 25. In its petition for cancellation, Under Armour sought to cancel the registration for the mark KINGS ARMOUR, asserting priority and likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act and dilution of its UNDER ARMOUR mark, ARMOUR mark, and family of ARMOUR-formative marks under Section 43(c) of the Trademark Act. Valiant Praize generally denies the salient allegations of the petition for cancellation.

Priority. In a cancellation proceeding where both parties own registrations, priority is in issue. Under Armour established priority with respect to the standard-character UNDER ARMOUR mark and the clothing goods set out in Reg. No. 2279668.

Likelihood of confusion. Applying the DuPont factors, the TTAB found that several factors strongly favored a likelihood of confusion and the remaining factors were neutral. Valiant Praize’s identification of goods includes pants, shorts, sweatshirts, and t-shirts (all for babies, adults, children, women, and men), and these goods are identical to Under Armour’s pants, shorts, sweat shirts, and t-shirts. In view of the identity of the goods, and the presumed identity of the trade channels and classes of consumers, the second, third, and part of the fourth DuPont factors weigh heavily in favor of a conclusion of a likelihood of confusion.

The portion of the fourth DuPont factor concerning purchasing conditions is neutral because consumers of the clothing items at issue would exercise only ordinary care.

The UNDER ARMOUR mark suggests that Under Armour’s clothing provides a protective layer worn beneath another layer of clothing, and the record is devoid of any third-party registrations for similar goods that might negatively bear on the mark’s conceptual strength. Additionally, the evidence relating to the success and renown of the UNDER ARMOUR mark indicates that it is commercially very strong. Because the UNDER ARMOUR mark is conceptually strong and commercially very strong, it is entitled to a broad scope of protection and so the fifth DuPont factor also weighs heavily in favor of a conclusion of a likelihood of confusion.

Regarding the similarity of marks the TTAB found that they shared the second-word ARMOR, or ARMOUR in the British spelling which was the dominant element of the respective marks and significant in creating the commercial impression of each mark. The marks are also similar in connotation and commercial impression due to the shared word ARMO(U)R. Therefore, the TTAB found that the first DuPont factor weighs in favor of a conclusion of likely confusion because the marks are more similar than dissimilar in terms of appearance, sound, and commercial impression. Further, because the goods are in part identical, and Under Armour’s mark is strong, the degree of similarity between the parties’ marks required to support a conclusion of likelihood of confusion decreases. Thus, the sixth, seventh, and eighth DuPont factors are neutral.

Accordingly, the TTAB concluded a likelihood of confusion between the marks and granted the petition for cancellation. Because the TTAB found a likelihood of confusion, it did not address dilution.

The Case is Cancellation No. 92082443.

Judge: Coggins, R.

Attorneys: Douglas A. Rettew, Patrick J. Rodgers, Maxime I. Jarquin (Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garret & Dunner, L.L.P.) for Under Armour, Inc. John V. Boyd, pro se.

Companies: Under Armour, Inc.; Valiant Praize Productions LLC

Cases: Trademark USPTO