IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Safari mark deemed unlikely to cause confusion with identical restaurant mark, (Mar 13, 2026)

By Steven Melendez

A TTAB panel reversed the decision of an examining attorney regarding a safari company’s application to register the mark “Where Life Happens,” based in part on the differences between the applicant’s and registrant’s services.

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has reversed a USPTO examining attorney’s decision to refuse registration of the standard character mark WHERE LIFE HAPPENS for “arranging and conducting safari expeditions for recreational purposes,” finding confusion not likely with an identical registered mark for “restaurant services.” The examining attorney had initially refused Aggressor Adventures, LLC’s application for registration citing likelihood of confusion and denied a request for reconsideration. In the TTAB’s view, differences in the services, channels of trade, and classes of consumers outweighed the fact that the marks were identical (In re Aggressor Adventures, LLC, No. 98356369 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2026)).

Similarity of marks and services. The two marks were “identical in all respects,” according to the TTAB. As far as the services, the panel considered whether consumers were used to seeing the relevant safari and restaurant services “originating from the same source.”

The examining attorney interpreted Aggressor’s application to “encompass arranging and conducting any recreational tour or expedition,” but the TTAB panel disagreed, finding it should be interpreted to refer to safari services in particular. The ruling cited several definitions of “safari” and the applicant’s website, finding that safari meant a “specific type of journey or expedition that includes viewing and/or hunting game, and did not encompass other kinds of recreational tours or expeditions.”

Aggressor also emphasized that its services and the existing restaurant services were different, but the examining attorney argued they were related since they often are offered by the same source. But the TTAB panel found that of 18 third-party use examples cited by the examining attorney, five didn’t include a reference to restaurant or safari expedition services, and 12 didn’t involve safaris, only mentioning other types of activities like snowmobile excursions, fly-fishing, or water sports. Only one third-party use mentioned a “Safari half-day tour,” but it did not show restaurant services—only a “menu link for ‘eat & drink’” without information on what was offered through that link, according to the ruling.

Aggressor’s website, too, only included “oblique references to meals or food.” The examining attorney submitted additional third-party use-based registrations, and Aggressor’s own use-based registrations, for other marks in an effort to show relatedness. But only three of the third-party registrations covered “both safari expeditions or tours, and restaurant services,” and two of those had the same owner. On balance, the TTAB said, the record did not show consumers were used to seeing the two types of services coming from the same source.

Trade channels and classes of purchasers. The examining attorney “erred” in finding that since the services lacked restrictions, they were to be assumed to travel in the same channels to the same class of purchasers. The TTAB explained that that presumption only applies to identical or “legally identical” goods or services. Here, there was insufficient evidence to show trade channels or classes of purchasers overlapped.

Purchaser care. Since there were no limitations in either the existing registration or Aggressor’s application, it was presumed that the services were offered at all price points to all types of consumers. For restaurant services, that included a range of establishments where food was “purchased on impulse” to fine dining offerings selected with more care. For safari services, it was likely “consumers will exercise some care” due to the nature of the services, though precedent pointed out that “even sophisticated purchasers can be confused by very similar marks.”

Strength of the marks. The existing mark was presumed to be inherently distinctive since it was registered without a claim of acquired distinctiveness. Aggressor argued the phrase “Where Life Happens” was suggestive or even highly suggestive of restaurant services, since they were “unexpected and unplanned,” whereas this was not true of safari expeditions. But the company submitted no evidence in favor of that argument, according to the TTAB.

Aggressor also argued the existing registration was commercially weak, but it also failed to provide evidence of third-party use. The TTAB panel found the registered mark had not been shown to be conceptually or commercially weak, meaning it was entitled to the “normal scope of protection to which inherently distinctive marks are entitled.”

Balancing the factors. Ultimately, the panel found that while the marks were identical, other factors made confusion less likely. “Considered together, we find that on this record the differences in the services, channels of trade, and classes of consumers outweigh the identity of the marks,” the TTAB said. “Accordingly, we conclude confusion is unlikely.”

The Case is No. 98356369.

Judge: Bradley, J.

Attorneys: W. West Allen (Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC) for Aggressor Adventures, LLC. Ryan Cianci for the USPTO.

Companies: Aggressor Adventures, LLC

Cases: Trademark USPTO