IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Refusal to register stylized ‘SIU SAN IGNACIO UNIVERSITY’ mark affirmed, (Mar 2, 2026)

By Ravindra Kumar Singh, B.L.

The Board found the applicant’s composite mark likely to cause confusion with a prior registration for “SIU” covering legally identical university-level educational services.

In a non-precedential opinion, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) affirmed a Trademark Examining Attorney’s refusal to register a composite mark featuring the letters “SIU” in stylized form, followed by “SAN IGNACIO UNIVERSITY.” The Board found that the mark was likely to cause confusion with the standard-character mark SIU, registered for “educational services in the nature of courses and degree programs at the University level.” It concluded that the services were legally identical, that the marks were highly similar in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression, and that overlapping trade channels and consumers reinforced the likelihood of confusion (In re San Ignacio University Inc., No. 98286205 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2026)).

Background.San Ignacio University, a university located in Miami, Florida, applied to register a composite mark on the Principal Register consisting of the letters “SIU” in blue, green, and yellow, with the wording “SAN IGNACIO UNIVERSITY” in blue uppercase letters to the right. The application, filed on November 27, 2023, claimed use in commerce since August 17, 2015, and covered a range of university-level educational services, including providing courses of instruction, workshops, seminars, conferences, online and distance-learning courses, and related informational services in Class 41.

The examining attorney refused registration under Section 2(d), citing Registration No. 3821063 for the standard-character mark SIU for university-level educational services and organizing educational and related events. After the refusal was made final and a request for reconsideration was denied, the applicant appealed to the Board.

Evidentiary ruling. As a preliminary matter, the Board sustained the examining attorney’s objection to certain website evidence submitted by the applicant. The screenshots lacked the required access dates and complete URLs. Citing In re I-Coat Co., LLC, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 171 (T.T.A.B. 2018), and TBMP § 1208.03, the Board reiterated that internet evidence must include the webpage image, the date of access or download, and the full URL. Because the applicant failed to cure the deficiencies, the Board declined to consider the materials.

Similarity of the services. Applying the likelihood-of-confusion framework set out in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973), the Board first examined the relatedness of the services.

The applicant’s identification included “providing online courses of instruction at the university and post-graduate level.” The cited registration covered “educational services in the nature of courses and degree programs at the University level.” The Board held that the applicant’s services fell squarely within the registrant’s broadly worded identification and were therefore legally identical. Citing Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2014), it emphasized that the comparison must be based on the services as identified in the application and registration. This factor strongly favored a likelihood of confusion.

Trade channels and consumers. Because the services were legally identical, the Board presumed that they traveled in the same trade channels to the same classes of purchasers. Further, the Board found no limitations in the identifications that would differentiate the parties’ markets. This factor also weighed in favor of confusion.

Comparison of the marks. The Board next compared the marks in their entirety. It found that “SIU” constituted the dominant element of the applicant’s composite mark due to its size, stylization, and prominent placement. The cited mark SIU was registered in standard characters, meaning it could appear in any font, style, or color.

The Board further noted that incorporating the entirety of a registered mark into a composite mark often increases the likelihood of confusion. It relied on Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of America, 970 F.2d 874, 876 (Fed. Cir. 1992), in concluding that consumers encountering “SIU SAN IGNACIO UNIVERSITY” could perceive it as a variation of the registered SIU mark.

Although the additional wording “SAN IGNACIO UNIVERSITY” distinguished the marks visually, the Board found that it did not eliminate confusion. Consumers could view “SIU” as an initialism for “San Ignacio University,” and nothing in the cited mark created a different connotation. Quoting In re Charger Ventures, 64 F.4th 1375, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2023), the Board observed that an added term may technically differentiate a mark while doing little to alleviate confusion. Overall, the first DuPont factor favored a likelihood of confusion.

Purchasing conditions. The applicant argued that selecting a university involves careful deliberation. The Board acknowledged that university education is not typically an impulse purchase. However, it found no evidence that all relevant purchasers would exercise heightened care or that the least sophisticated consumers would do more than exercise ordinary care. Citing In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 1993), it reiterated that even sophisticated purchasers may be confused when identical services are offered under highly similar marks. At best, this factor weighed slightly against confusion.

Actual confusion. The applicant asserted that it had used its mark since 2015 without evidence of actual confusion. The Board treated this as an unsupported attorney argument, citing Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2018). It further emphasized that the test is the likelihood of confusion, not actual confusion. The seventh and eighth DuPont factors were therefore neutral.

Conclusion. Weighing the relevant DuPont factors, the Board held that the identity of services, overlapping trade channels, and strong similarity of the marks outweighed any marginal purchaser sophistication. It affirmed the refusal under Section 2(d), concluding that the applicant’s stylized “SIU SAN IGNACIO UNIVERSITY” mark was likely to cause confusion with the registered SIU mark for university-level educational services.

The Case is Serial No. 98286205.

Attorneys: Sherry Flax (Saul Ewing LLP) for San Ignacio University Inc. Karl Wert for the USPTO.

Companies: San Ignacio University Inc.

Cases: Trademark FloridaNews