IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Refusal to register LIVIA JOLIE mark for clothing affirmed due to likelihood of confusion with registered mark LIVIA for beachwear, (Jun 22, 2026)

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

Applicant’s mark LIVIA JOLIE and the registered mark LIVIA share the dominant term LIVIA and the addition of the term JOLIE is not sufficient to distinguish the marks.

In a non-precedential decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) affirmed an examining attorney’s refusal to register the applicant’s mark LIVIA JOLIE for clothing under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act finding a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark LIVIA for beachwear, and bathing suits. The TTAB determined that confusion was likely because the marks share the dominant term LIVIA and the marks, considered in their entireties, are similar in sight, sound, meaning, and overall commercial impression (In re Maya Brooke Inc., Serial No. 98758658 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 4, 2026)).

Background. Maya Brooke Inc. (applicant) sought to register on the Principal Register of the standard-character mark LIVIA JOLIE (“JOLIE” disclaimed) for “Dresses; Pants; Shirts; Shorts; Skirts; Tops as clothing; Clothing jackets” in International Class 25. The application provided an English translation of “JOLIE” in the mark as “beautiful” or “pretty.” The examining attorney refused the registration under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act on the ground that the applicant’s mark when used in connection with the identified goods, so resembles the registered mark LIVIA and its design, for “beachwear, bathing suits” in International Class 25 that it is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive. The applicant appealed the refusal to register to the TTAB.

Likelihood of confusion. The TTAB, upon considering the DuPont factors for evaluating likelihood of confusion, agreed with the examining attorney that the applicant’s mark was likely to cause confusion with the registered mark.

Under the first DuPont factor, the TTAB found that LIVIA is the leading term in the applicant’s mark and the only term in the registered mark, a factor that makes the marks similar. Further, there is no dispute that LIVIA in both marks is visually and aurally identical. To that extent, the literal elements in the marks are identical. The TTAB found the applicant’s argument that the applied-for mark conveys a different commercial impression due to the use of the French word JOLIE because it evokes associations with French fashion and design unconvincing. The TTAB noted that some consumers particularly those familiar with the registered mark are likely to believe the marks are related. Such consumers who later encounter the applicant’s LIVIA JOLIE clothing goods may think that the applicant’s goods are a product line extension of the registrant’s goods. Therefore, the TTAB found the addition of the term JOLIE was not sufficient to distinguish the marks, which share the dominant term LIVIA. In addition, the TTAB noted that the literal terms LIVIA and LIVIA JOLIE are how consumers would call for the goods. The TTAB also found that the marks, considered in their entireties, are similar in sight, sound, meaning, and overall commercial impression. Therefore, 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 applicant’s goods are “Dresses; Pants; Shirts; Shorts; Skirts; Tops as clothing; Clothing jackets” and the goods in the cited registration are “beachwear, bathing suits.” This broad identification, overlaps with the narrower identification in the applicant’s application; therefore, the TTAB found that the goods are legally identical in part. The examining attorney also provided evidence showing that same entity commonly provides the applicant’s and the registrant’s clothing items under the same mark, including third-party registration evidence and internet evidence. As the applicant did not dispute the relatedness of the goods, the TTAB determined that they are legally identical in part and related. Thus, the second DuPont factor also supported a conclusion that confusion is likely.

Next, under the third DuPont factor, as to the related goods, the TTAB presumes the goods are, or would be, sold in all normal channels of trade for such goods and to all usual purchasers of such goods. Further, the examining attorney’s third-party internet evidence demonstrated that these channels include stores or websites that sell clothing and supports a finding that the trade channels and consumers of the relevant goods overlap. Therefore, the third DuPont factor also supported a likelihood of confusion.

The TTAB noted that the applicant supplied partial (i.e. not fully expanded) records from the USPTO’s TSDR database for eight registered marks that incorporate the term “LIVIA” in connection with similar or related goods and services purportedly to show the term functions as a common personal name or arbitrary element rather than a strong source identifier. The examining attorney argued that the proffered third-party registrations do not show “conceptual” weakness of the cited mark because they either provide a different commercial impression since the third-party marks do not contain the identical term LIVIA or are for unrelated goods, none so close as the applicant’s and the registrant’s goods. Further, the examining attorney argued that third-party registrations are entitled to little weight on the issue of confusing similarity because the registrations are not evidence that the registered marks are actually in use or that the public is familiar with them.

The TTAB found only five of the registrations were potentially probative as to conceptual weakness of the cited mark – ALIVIA FORD, ALIVIA, ELIVIA &CO., ALIVIA SIMONE, and OWLIVIA (Stylized). The TTAB noted that although these registrations have some probative value to show that LIVIA is a given name, they do not show any connection between the mark and the registered clothing goods – that is, the mark is arbitrary and conceptually strong as applied to these goods. There was no evidence of commercial or conceptual weakness of the cited mark LIVIA under the sixth DuPont factor. Therefore, the TTAB found that fifth DuPont factor considering the “fame” or strength of the prior mark, and the sixth DuPont factor considering the number and nature of similar marks in use for similar goods weighed slightly in favor of likelihood of confusion.

Balancing the DuPont factors, the TTAB concluded that no factor weighed against likelihood of confusion and determined that confusion is likely between the applicant’s mark and the registered mark for the goods in Class 25. Accordingly, the refusal to register the applicant’s mark was affirmed.

The Case is Serial No. 98758658.

Judge: Elgin, J.

Attorneys: Joseph E. Sutton (Sutton IP Associates) for Maya Brooke Inc. Marianne Strassle for the USPTO

Companies: Maya Brooke Inc.

Cases: Trademark USPTO