IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Refusal to register HVNLYDAZE mark for clothing affirmed due to likelihood of confusion with registered mark HVNLYFIT, (Aug 21, 2026)

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

Applicant’s mark and the registered mark are similar, share the dominant term HVNLY, and the involved goods, channels of trade, and classes of consumers are legally identical.

In a non-precedential decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) affirmed an examining attorney’s refusal to register the applicant’s proposed mark HVNLYDAZE for various clothing items under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act finding a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark HVNLYFIT for leggings, sports bras, sweaters; t-shirts, and gym shorts. The TTAB determined that confusion was likely because a consumer with a general rather than specific recollection of the cited HVNLYFIT mark for clothing who separately encounters the HVNLYDAZE mark used in connection with the identical goods is likely to believe mistakenly that the goods have a common source (In re Heavenly Daze Ltd., No. 98209106 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 14, 2026)).

Background. Heavenly Daze Limited (applicant) sought to register on the Principal Register the standard-character mark HVNLYDAZE for clothing jackets for men, women and children; bottoms as clothing for men, women and children; boats for men, women and children; headwear for men, women and children; hooded sweatshirts for men, women and children; pants for men, women and children; shirts for men, women and children; shorts for men, women and children; sweaters for men, women and children; sweatpants for men, women and children; sweatshirts for men, women and children; t-shirts for men, women and children; tops as clothing for men, women and children in International Class 25. The examining attorney refused registration under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, on the ground that the applicant’s mark resembles the standard-character mark HVNLYFIT, registered on the Principal Register for “Leggings; Sports bras; Sweaters; T-shirts; Gym shorts” in International Class 25, as to be likely to cause confusion when used in connection with the goods identified in the application. After the examining attorney issued a final refusal, the applicant requested reconsideration, which was denied. The applicant then appealed the refusal to register to the TTAB.

Likelihood of confusion. The TTAB, upon considering the DuPont factors for evaluating likelihood of confusion, found the key first two DuPont factors, and the third DuPont factor, supported a conclusion that confusion is likely.

Under the first DuPont factor, the TTAB found that the HVNLYFIT and HVNLYDAZE marks are visually similar, as both begin with the disemvoweled contraction HVNLY, and that the common HVNLY element of these marks is dominant in both of them. Further, the TTAB found that the marks are also similar in sound, as the first and dominant “HVNLY” elements of each mark will sound identical. The TTAB noted that the HVNLYFIT and HVNLYDAZE marks are similar in sound from the standpoint of a consumer with a general rather than specific recollection of the cited HVNLYFIT mark for clothing who separately hears the HVNLYDAZE mark verbalized in connection with legally-identical goods. Additionally, the HVNLYFIT and HVNLYDAZE marks are also similar in meaning and are likely to create the same commercial impressions because the prefix HVNLY dominates the meaning of the marks, as the first element of both marks. The HVNLY-prefix imbues both marks with the same celestial aura of “complete delight,” and the respective -FIT and -DAZE suffixes do not add more distinctive or striking content to the marks.

The TTAB also rejected the applicant’s argument that “HVNLY is a vowel-deleted phonetic equivalent of the common laudatory term ‘heavenly’,” and as such, it is conceptually weak and entitled to a narrow scope of protection. Therefore, the TTAB determined that the HVNLYFIT and HVNLYDAZE marks are similar in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression, and the first DuPont factor weighed strongly in favor of a conclusion that confusion is likely.

Under the second DuPont factor, the TTAB noted that the goods identified in the cited registration as “T-shirts” encompass the goods identified in the application as “T-shirts for men, women and children,” and the goods identified in the cited registration as “Sweaters” encompass the goods identified in the application as “Sweaters for men, women and children.” Further, the goods identified in the application as “Shorts for men, women and children” encompass the goods identified in the cited registration as “Gym shorts.” The cited registration also covers goods identified as “Leggings,” which are a type of pants that are encompassed within the “Pants for men, women and children” identified in the application. Thus, these four sets of goods were legally identical. As the goods identified in the application and the cited registration are legally identical in part, the second DuPont factor strongly supported a conclusion that confusion is likely.

Next, under the third DuPont factor, as to the identical goods, the TTAB presumes that the channels of trade and classes of purchasers are the same. Therefore, the third DuPont factor also supported a likelihood of confusion.

Accordingly, the TTAB agreed with the examining attorney that the applicant’s mark was likely to cause confusion with the registered mark and the refusal to register the applicant’s mark was affirmed.

The Case is Serial No. 98209106.

Judge: Larkin, C.

Attorneys: Edward Payabyab for the USPTO.

Companies: Heavenly Daze Ltd.

Cases: Trademark USPTO