IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Refusal to register ‘WORLD SPORTS‘ mark for jewelry charms affirmed, (Apr 17, 2026)

By Ravindra Kumar Singh, B.L.

The Board found a likelihood of confusion with identical “WORLD SPORTS” marks registered for apparel, citing identical wording, related goods, and overlapping trade channels.

In a non-precedential decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) upheld a Trademark Examining Attorney’s refusal to register the mark WORLD SPORTS for costume jewelry, finding a likelihood of confusion with three previously registered WORLD SPORTS marks used for clothing. The Board determined that the identical wording of the marks, combined with the related nature of jewelry and apparel goods and their overlapping trade channels, would likely cause consumer confusion (In re Twinchew LLC, No. 98289940 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 2026)).

Background. The applicant, Twinchew LLC, applied to register the mark WORLD SPORTS (standard characters, “SPORTS” disclaimed) on the Principal Register under International Class 14 for “costume jewelry, namely, metal charms for necklaces and bracelets.” The application was filed on an intent-to-use basis.

The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, citing three prior registrations owned by the same registrant for marks containing the wording WORLD SPORTS. These registrations, covering International Class 25, identified goods such as shirts, sweatshirts, and headwear. The cited registrations had been accepted on the Principal Register based on acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f). When the refusal was made final, the applicant appealed.

Likelihood of confusion. In assessing the likelihood of confusion, the TTAB applied the factors outlined in In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361 (C.C.P.A. 1973), focusing on the similarity of the marks, strength of the cited mark, and relatedness of the goods and trade channels.

Similarity of the marks. The Board found the marks to be identical in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. The applicant did not dispute that the wording was identical but argued that its mark would appear with its company name and in a heart-shaped design, thereby creating a distinct impression. The TTAB rejected this argument, holding that a standard character mark is not limited to any particular display or design. Citing In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1207 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1993), and Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp., 222 F.3d 943, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2000), the Board emphasized that registration rights extend to all reasonable depictions of the mark.

The Board further relied on In re i.am.symbolic, LLC, 866 F.3d 1315, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2017), to clarify that the presence of a house mark or additional branding elements does not limit the scope of the applied-for mark. Given the identical wording, the Board held that this factor weighed heavily in favor of a likelihood of confusion.

Strength of the cited mark. The applicant argued that the cited WORLD SPORTS mark was highly descriptive and weak, pointing to third-party uses and registrations incorporating similar wording. The TTAB rejected this contention, holding that the cited registration—having been accepted under Section 2(f)—was entitled to a presumption of acquired distinctiveness and validity. Further, the Board noted that such registrations carry a presumption that consumers associate the mark with a single source.

The Board also found that the applicant’s third-party evidence was insufficient to demonstrate commercial weakness. Unlike inJack Wolfskin Ausrüstung Für Draussen GmbH v. New Millennium Sports, S.L.U., 797 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the record did not show widespread or pervasive use of similar marks in the relevant market. Additionally, the TTAB held that the applicant’s argument amounted to an impermissible collateral attack on the validity of the cited registration, which could only be challenged through a cancellation proceeding. Citing Food Specialty Co. v. Standard Products Co., 406 F.2d 1397 (C.C.P.A. 1969), the Board reaffirmed that such challenges are not permitted in ex parte appeals.

Even assuming some conceptual weakness, the TTAB emphasized that weak marks are still entitled to protection against confusingly similar marks.

Relatedness of goods and trade channels. The TTAB next examined whether the applicant’s jewelry goods were related to the registrant’s clothing goods and whether they traveled in similar trade channels. The Board found that the goods were sufficiently related, relying on evidence that clothing and jewelry are commonly sold under the same mark by a single source.

Citing Detroit Athletic Co. v. Detroit Athletic Club, 903 F.3d 1297, 1306–07 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the Board observed that third-party evidence demonstrating that a single company offers both types of goods supports a finding of relatedness. It further noted that jewelry and apparel are complementary goods often worn together and purchased in the same shopping context.

The applicant argued that the registrant operated primarily as a sports agency rather than a fashion retailer, and that the goods targeted different consumers. The Board rejected this argument, holding that the analysis must be based on the goods as identified in the application and registrations, not on extrinsic evidence of actual business operations.

Accordingly, the Board found that the goods were related and likely to be encountered by overlapping classes of consumers in similar trade channels.

Balancing the DuPont factors. In balancing the DuPont factors, the TTAB concluded that the identity of the marks, combined with the relatedness of the goods and overlap in trade channels, strongly supported a finding of likelihood of confusion. The Board emphasized that, even if the cited mark possessed some conceptual weakness, its acquired distinctiveness and identical wording with the applied-for mark outweighed any such considerations.

Thus, the TTAB affirmed the Trademark Examining Attorney’s refusal to register the applicant’s proposed mark.

The Case is Serial No. 98289940.

Judge: Heasley, D.

Attorneys: Twinchew, LLC, pro se. Diane Collopy for the USPTO.

Companies: Twinchew, LLC

Cases: Trademark USPTO