IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Refusal to register RICH TRAPPER$ CLUB mark reversed for low likelihood of confusion, (Feb 13, 2025)

By Patricia K. Ruiz, J.D.

The TTAB found that an illustration of a bundle of money character on the applied-for mark is entitled to at least as much weight as the wording pictured.

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) reversed an examining attorney’s refusal to register the applied-for mark RICH TRAPPER$ CLUB. The TTAB determined that the substantial differences in appearance, sound, meaning, and commercial impression of the marks outweighs the second, third, and fourth DuPont factors and concluded the applicant’s mark is unlikely to cause confusion with the cited mark and reversed the examining attorney’s refusal to register (In re Rich Trappers Club LLC, No. 97774077 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2025)).

Applied-for mark and cited registration. Rich Trappers Club LLC seeks registration on the principal register of a composite mark featuring the term RTC RICH TRAPPER$ CLUB (CLUB disclaimed) for “Clothing, namely, pants, shirts; footwear; headwear; all of the foregoing excluding apparel for collegiate institutes and not related to educational services and the promotion thereof” in International Class 25 and “On-line wholesale and retail store services featuring clothing; all of the foregoing excluding apparel for collegiate institutes and not related to educational services and the promotion thereof” in Class 25. The application contained the following description of the mark: “The mark consists of a stylized image of a bundle of money with a face, hands, and feet wearing sneakers. The bundle of money is also wearing a hat and holding a bear trap attached to a chain. Below the image is the stylized large letters ‘RTC’ and below ‘RTC’ is ‘RICH TRAPPER$ CLUB’ stylized.”

The examining attorney refused registration based on a likelihood of confusion with the standard-character mark “RTC” registered for goods and services including “Hats; Hooded sweat shirts; Scarves; Scrubs not for medical purposes; Shirts; Sweat pants; T-shirts” in International Class 25 (cited registration). The applicant appealed the final refusal to register and requested reconsideration, which the examining attorney denied.

Class 25. The TTAB found the limitation in the applicant’s identification of goods and services does not meaningfully distinguish the applicant’s goods and services from those of the registrant. First, it found that the applicant’s “shirts,” excluding shirts “for collegiate institutes and not related to educational services and the promotion thereof,” are encompassed within the registrant’s broadly-identified “shirts.” The TTAB explained that it is sufficient for a finding of likelihood of confusion if relatedness is established for any item encompassed in the identification of goods in a particular class. Because there are no restrictions in the cited registration, the TTAB presumed that the identical goods travel through the same channels of trade to the same purchasers. Thus, as to Class 25, the TTAB found the second, third, and part of the fourth DuPont factors supported a finding of a likelihood of confusion.

Class 35. While the applicant’s Class 35 services are not identical to the registrant’s Class 25 goods, the respective goods and services need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing [be] such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [they] emanate from the same source. There is an inherent relationship between the various clothing items in the cited registration and the applicant’s “wholesale and retail services featuring clothing, excluding apparel for collegiate institutes and not related to educational services and the promotion thereof.” The TTAB explained that it is well recognized that use of the same or similar marks for goods by one party, and for services involving those goods by another, may lead to a likelihood of confusion. Thus, the TTAB found the identifications in the application and cited registration support finding the goods and services closely related. The TTAB’s analysis with respect to trade channels and consumers was similar to its consideration of the applicant’s Class 25 goods. The TTAB found that the second, third, and part of the fourth DuPont factors support a finding of a likelihood of confusion.

Similarity or dissimilarity of the marks. The applicant’s mark shows an illustration of an anthromorphic bundle of money with a face, hands, and feet wearing sneakers and holding a bear trap attached to a chain. The mark also shows the lettering “RTC,” an initialism for the other wording in the mark, RICH TRAPPER$ CLUB. The cited mark is RTC in standard characters. The TTAB disagreed with the examining attorney that RTC is the dominant portion of the applicant’s mark and that the applicant’s mark is confusingly similar to the cited mark in appearance, sound, meaning, and commercial impression. The TTAB found the illustration of the anthromorphic bundle of money is twice as tall as the combined wording and three times as tall as the term RTC alone. The TTAB found that the bundle of money character is entitled to at least as much weight as the RTC wording. Further, the TTAB found the RTC element is not dominant, as it merely reinforces the phrase RICH TRAPPER$ CLUB and the character depiction of that phrase. The TTAB concluded that a purchaser with a general rather than specific impression of the applicant’s mark is more likely to remember the words RICH TRAPPER$ CLUB and the character design than just the letters RTC alone. The TTAB thus gave the words RICH TRAPPER$ CLUB and the design element of the bundle of money character more weight than the abbreviation RTC.

Sound, commercial impression. As to sound, the TTAB found the marks sound more dissimilar than similar, as it is likely consumers would refer to the mark as RICH TRAPPER$ CLUB than RTC. Further, in considering overall commercial impression, the TTAB found the applicant’s mark creates a commercial impression distinct from the registrant’s RTC mark.

Balancing of factors. Balancing the DuPont factors, the TTAB found that the substantial differences in appearance, sound, meaning, and commercial impression of the marks outweighs the second, third, and fourth DuPont factors. The TTAB concluded the applicant’s mark is unlikely to cause confusion with the cited mark and reversed the examining attorney’s refusal to register.

The Case is Serial No. 97774077.

Judge: Brock, E.

Attorneys: Adriano Pacifici (Intellectual Property Consulting, LLC) for Rich Trappers Club LLC. Brendan McCauley for the USPTO.

Companies: Rich Trappers Club LLC

Cases: Trademark USPTO