IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Refusal to register BETTER TOGETHER mark affirmed, (Apr 24, 2025)

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

The applicant failed to demonstrate the required direct association between the applied-for mark and its services.

In a non-precedential decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) affirmed the refusal to register the applicant’s standard character mark BETTER TOGETHER because none of the applicant’s specimens offered to support its International Class 38 services demonstrated a direct association between the mark and the applicant’s services (In re Trinity Christian Center of Santa Ana, Inc., No. 87785608 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 2025)).

Background. Trinity Christian Center of Santa Ana, Inc. (applicant) sought registration on the Principal Register of the standard character mark BETTER TOGETHER for various “telecommunication services” in International Class 38. The applicant filed a Statement of Use, claiming first use and first use in commerce of its mark in connection with the identified services on April 22, 2019. The applicant had submitted five specimens of use with its Statement of Use, none of which the examining attorney accepted as supporting evidence of use for the International Class 38 services and refused registration of the applicant’s mark. The applicant then filed a notice of appeal and a request for reconsideration. The TTAB suspended the appeal and remanded the application to the examining attorney for consideration of the applicant’s request. The examining attorney was not persuaded by the applicant’s arguments and continued the refusal. After the refusal was made final, the applicant appealed the refusal to register to the TTAB.

Specimens submitted. The applicant provided five specimens to support its claim of use for the mark BETTER TOGETHER. The specimens included a page from its BETTER TOGETHER YouTube channel, webpages, and advertisements related to the BETTER TOGETHER program. However, the specimens failed to establish a direct association with the claimed services. The TTAB found that the specimens primarily referenced content rather than the services themselves. The TTAB noted that the applicant’s mark is used in internet advertising but lacks an explanation of how a “direct association” is made between the mark and the applicant’s services. The TTAB found that the specimens do not demonstrate the use of the mark in a manner that creates in the minds of potential consumers a direct association between the mark and any of the applicant’s services. Therefore, the applicant’s argument that the mark is used in connection with broadcasting services was deemed insufficient.

Other arguments. The applicant cited the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) Section 1301.04(h)(iii)21 and advocated for a broader interpretation of broadcasting services that would allow acceptance of its specimens. However, the TTAB noted that Section 1301.04(h)(iii) discusses in relevant part that expanding traditional broadcast television and cable outlets to streaming services and makes no reference to the application of the requirement for a “direct association between the offer of services and the mark sought to be registered therefor” for specimens of use mandated by In re Universal Oil Prods. Further, the TMEP does not have the force and effect of law.

The applicant also argued that a brand may be used for a Class 41 entertainment service, and at the same time, the same brand may be used by its owner for the streaming of faith-based video material on the internet. Both services may occur simultaneously and may be branded by the presence and use of the same mark. The TTAB found that the problem is not that there are additional marks on the applicant’s specimen or that in principle, one mark can be used to identify more than one service, the problem is that the applicant’s specimens do not make a direct association with any of the applicant’s services and that BETTER TOGETHER in the specimens identifies a service other than any of the applicant’s services.

Lastly, the applicant argued that the examining attorney did not provide evidence to show that customers would not recognize the mark or associate the services being offered. The TTAB noted that the applicant cited no authority for its argument. Additionally, the TTAB found the argument unpersuasive as none of the applicant’s specimens offered to support its International Class 38 services demonstrate a direct association between the mark and the applicant’s services.

Thus, the TTAB affirmed the refusal to register the applicant’s mark.

The Case is Serial No. 87785608.

Judge: Zervas, A.

Attorneys: Jennifer L. Whitelaw (Whitelaw Legal Group) for Trinity Christian Center of Santa Ana, Inc. William Verhosekfor the USPTO.

Cases: Trademark USPTO