IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: No likelihood of confusion between MANE ESTEEM and MANE 'N TAIL marks, (Oct 1, 2025)

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

Opposition to the mark MANE ESTEEM based on likelihood of confusion was dismissed because the marks MAIN ESTEEM and MANE 'N TAIL are very different in overall appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.

In a nonprecedential decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) found no likelihood of confusion and dismissed Straight Arrow Products, Inc.’s opposition to registration of the mark MANE ESTEEM [MANE disclaimed] in standard characters. The TTAB concluded that confusion is unlikely between the mark MANE ESTEEM for hair care products and hair salon services and the registered mark MANE 'N TAIL for hair care products for humans and domestic animals because the dissimilarity of the marks in sound, appearance, connotation, and commercial impression, coupled with the conceptual and commercial weakness of the term MANE outweighed the other DuPont factors (Straight Arrow Products, Inc. v. Willette Manigault and Mane Esteem, LLC, No. 91266129 (T.T.A.B. Sept. 25, 2025)).

Background. Straight Arrow Products, Inc. (opposer) opposed the registration on the Principal Register of two single-class applications owned by Mane Esteem, LLC for the mark MANE ESTEEM (MANE disclaimed) in standard characters for hair care products and hair salon services in International Class 3 and International Class 44. The opposer asserted likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act based on ownership of three registrations of the mark MANE 'N TAIL in standard characters on the Principal Register (collectively, the Pleaded Registrations), with claims of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act.

Likelihood of confusion claim. The TTAB, upon considering the DuPont factors for evaluating a likelihood of confusion, found that no confusion was likely. The TTAB noted that in Class 3, opposer’s ’880 Registration and the applicant’s Application No. 90001575 both identify shampoo, conditioner, spray, and gel. Thus, the parties’ identified goods in Class 3 are identical or legally identical in part. Further, as the goods are identical or legally identical in part and neither identification contains any limitations they flow through the same trade channels to the same classes of consumers. Additionally, the evidence showed that hair care products are relatively low-priced and subject to impulse buying. Therefore, the risk of likelihood of confusion is increased because purchasers of such products are held to a lesser standard of purchasing care.

Turning to the applicant’s second application, Application No. 90001589, identifying services in Class 44, the TTAB found an inherent relationship between the various hair care products in the opposer’s ’880 Registration and the applicant’s hair styling, hair care services, advice relating to hair care, and providing advice and information in the fields of hairstyling, haircare, and hair maintenance. With respect to trade channels and consumers, the TTAB’s analysis was similar to the consideration of the applicant’s Class 3 goods, but without the presumption accorded to goods that are in part identical.

Regarding the purchasing conditions and buyers, as noted previously, the goods of the opposer’s Reg. No. ’880 and the applicant’s Class 44 services do not include any purchaser restrictions, so the parties’ identified goods and services are available to all the usual purchasers for such goods and services. Consequently, the classes of consumers for such goods and services overlap.

Accordingly, the second, third, and fourth DuPont factors considering the similarity or dissimilarity of the goods and services, trade channels, and conditions of sale weighed in favor of likely confusion for App. No. 90001589 in Class 44, and heavily so for App. No. 90001575 in Class 3.

The TTAB noted that the opposer showed some degree of brand recognition strength, but failed to demonstrate that its mark is on the high end of the fame or commercial strength spectrum amongst a “significant portion of the relevant U.S. consumers” in the human hair care industry under the fifth DuPont factor. Therefore, the fifth DuPont factor was neutral. The TTAB also found the seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth DuPont factors neutral.

Further, despite some degree of brand recognition strength developed by the opposer for its MANE 'N TAIL mark, the TTAB found that the MANE portion of the opposer’s mark was so conceptually or inherently weak and diluted by third party use that it will not act as a bar to the registration of every mark that included the word MANE. Thus, the sixth DuPont factor weighed against likely confusion.

Under the first DuPont factor, the TTAB noted that the applicant’s mark, MANE is descriptive of a characteristic of its Class 3 hair care goods and Class 44 hair care services. The remaining term in the applicant’s MANE ESTEEM mark is the term ESTEEM. Given the descriptive nature of MANE in the applicant’s mark, the term ESTEEM gives the applicant’s mark its overall meaning of “hair confidence.” This meaning is not present in the opposer’s mark. Additionally, while the parties’ marks are somewhat similar visually, in that both share the same first term, the similarities end there. The remaining components in the marks are visually dissimilar. The opposer’s mark adds 'N TAIL while the applicant’s mark adds ESTEEM, and there are no apparent visual similarities between these portions of the marks. Further, the term MANE is not more dominant than the TAIL or 'N TAIL components of the opposer’s mark.

Therefore, taking into account the appropriate degree of strength of the opposer’s mark, including the weakness of the only shared component with the applicant's mark (i.e., MANE), and in view of these significant differences in connotation and commercial impression, along with the differences in sight and sound, the TTAB found that the marks as a whole are dissimilar. Thus, the first DuPont factor weighed against a finding of likelihood of confusion.

The TTAB noted that any of the DuPont factors may play a dominant role. Here, the dissimilarity of the marks in sound, appearance, connotation, and commercial impression, in conjunction with the conceptual and commercial weakness of the only shared element of the marks (i.e., MANE) outweighed the other DuPont factors. Accordingly, the TTAB concluded that confusion is not likely between the marks and dismissed the opposition.

The Case is Opposition No. 91266129.

Judge: Brock, E.

Attorneys: Douglas Panzer (Royer Cooper Cohen Braunfeld) Straight Arrow Products, Inc. Rosezena J. Pierce (R.J. Pierce Law Group, P.C.) for Willette Manigault and Mane Esteem, LLC.

Companies: Straight Arrow Products, Inc.; Willette Manigault and Mane Esteem, LLC

Cases: Trademark USPTO