IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Refusal to register applicant’s stylized mark for bed sheets and other bedding products reversed, (Jan 29, 2026)

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

The TTAB found that the differences between the marks, viewed in their entireties, are substantial enough to make confusion unlikely even where the marks are used with identical goods.

In a non-precedential decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) reversed an examining attorney’s refusal to register the applicant’s stylized mark for bed sheets and other bedding products because the applicant’s mark was unlikely to cause confusion with the registered standard character mark LUXBRAND for bed blankets and bed sheets. The TTAB concluded that the dissimilarity of the marks in sound, appearance, meaning and commercial impression is sufficiently great such that, coupled with the conceptual weakness of the cited mark outweigh the identical nature of some of the goods and their respective trade channels (In re Luxury Brands International LLC, No. 98476728 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2026)).

Background. Luxury Brands International LLC (applicant) sought to register on the Principal Register the stylized mark with LUXURY BRANDS INTERNATIONAL disclaimed, for bed sheets and other bedding products in International Class 24. The examining attorney refused to register the proposed mark under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act on the ground that the applicant’s mark resembled the registered standard character mark LUXBRAND for various goods in International Class 24, including “bed blankets” and “bed sheets,” and that it is likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive. When the refusal was made final, the applicant appealed and requested reconsideration. After the examining attorney denied the request for reconsideration, the appeal resumed.

Likelihood of confusion. The TTAB, upon considering the DuPont factors for evaluating a likelihood of confusion, found that confusion was unlikely.

The TTAB found that when the marks are compared as a whole, they seem to be dissimilar in sound, appearance, connotation, and commercial impression. The TTAB noted that the relatively large size and staggered presentation of the three letters is eye-catching. By contrast, “Luxury Brands” appears underneath in a much smaller sized and lighter shade font, making it less perceptible. In light of the visual presentation of the applicant’s mark and the meaning of the disclaimed words, the TTAB found that consumers are likely to overlook “Luxury Brands” as well as the entirety of that entity designation and instead focus on LBI. Further, the marks also sound different. The cited mark is likely to be shortened to LBI when spoken by consumers, which sounds nothing like LUXBRAND. Additionally, even if this were not the case, “LBI Luxury Brands International” sounds significantly different than LUXBRAND.

Finally, as to connotation and commercial impression, as noted above, LUXBRAND is a portmanteau of the two words “luxury” and “brand.” LBI has no recognized meaning in relation to the identified goods. However, when considered within the context of the mark as a whole, it appears to be an initialism of the applicant’s company name Luxury Brands International, LLC. Under either scenario, the marks engender different connotations and commercial impressions, with the cited mark evoking a concept and the applicant’s mark evoking a specific supplier. Therefore, the first DuPont factor weighed against finding a likelihood of confusion.

The TTAB found that the applicant’s and the registrant’s goods are identical in part. Further, the TTAB relied on the presumption that such goods travel in the same ordinary trade and distribution channels and will be marketed to the same potential consumers. Accordingly, the second and third DuPont factors weighed in favor of a finding of likelihood of confusion.

The TTAB noted that the items in the application and cited registration consisting of “bed sheets,” “Bed sheets for children,” “Children’s bed sheets;” “Fitted bed sheets,” “Bed blankets,” “Children’s bed blankets,” and “Silk bed blankets” are not limited to any particular type or consumer, they encompass both the general public as well as commercial purchasers like hotels, health care providers, long term care facilities. Thus, the fourth DuPont factor is neutral.

On the other hand, the TTAB found that the cited mark LUXBRAND is highly suggestive, meaning that it has some degree of conceptual weakness. Consumers will perceive the abbreviation “lux,” the recognized shortened form of the word “luxury,” as describing lavish bedding sheets, bedding blankets and other similar products. The TTAB found that the cited mark LUXBRAND is highly suggestive and falls on the lower end of the conceptual strength spectrum, making its scope of protection relatively limited. LUX has also been used as a segment of registered marks for the same or similar products further weakening the cited mark. With a relatively limited scope of protection, this DuPont factor weighed moderately against a likelihood of confusion.

The TTAB noted that the dissimilarity of the marks in sound, appearance, meaning and commercial impression is sufficiently great such that, coupled with the conceptual weakness of the cited mark it can outweigh the identical nature of some of the goods and their respective trade channels. The TTAB also noted that where the goods are partially identical, the degree of similarity between the marks necessary to support a determination that confusion is likely declines.

In sum, the TTAB determined that the applicant’s mark is not likely to cause confusion with the registered mark. Accordingly, the refusal to register the applicant’s mark under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act was reversed.

The Case is Serial No. 98476728.

Judge: Lykos, A.

Attorneys: Sumedh Rishi (Markavocom) for Luxury Brands International LLC. Shahrzad Poormosleh for the USPTO.

Companies: Luxury Brands International LLC

Cases: Trademark USPTO