Angels of Love, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 13, 2000

No. 75217869 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2000)

Paper No. 16
RLS/Fleming
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB 1/13/00
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Angels of Love, Inc.
________
Serial No. 75/217,869
_______
Michael A. O’Neil of Gardere & Wynne, LLP for applicant.
Andrew D. Lawrence, Trademark Examining Attorney,
Law Office 108 (David Shallant, Managing Attorney)
_______
Before Simms, Hanak and Holtzman, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Simms, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Angels of Love, Inc. (applicant), a Texas corporation,
has appealed from the final refusal of the Trademark
Examining Attorney to register the mark shown below
Ser. No. 75/217,869
2
for pins, pendants, necklaces and earrings always featuring
an angel motif sold exclusively through independent sales
associates.1 The Examining Attorney has refused
registration under Section 2(d) of the Act, 15 USC
§1052(d), on the basis of Registration No. 2,075,982,
issued July 1, 1997, for the mark ANGEL D’AMOUR for
jewelry, watches, precious gemstones and objects of art
made from or including precious metal, namely,
paperweights, key fobs, buttons, buckles, cigarette cases,
cigar cases, manicure sets and vanity cases. In the
registration, it is indicated that the English translation
of the mark is “angel of love.”
The Examining Attorney argues that, under the doctrine
of foreign equivalents, the registered mark creates a
similar commercial impression to that of applicant’s mark.
The Examining Attorney argues that the French language is
familiar to an appreciable number of Americans. According
to the Examining Attorney, the meaning of the two marks is
the same, except that applicant’s mark contains the plural
form of the word “Angel.” Also, the Examining Attorney
argues that the word portion of applicant’s mark dominates
and should be afforded greater weight in the likelihood-of-

1 Application Serial No. 75/217,869, filed December 17, 1996,
based upon allegations of use since December 9, 1996. Applicant
Ser. No. 75/217,869
3
confusion analysis. In this regard, the Examining Attorney
maintains that the design element of applicant’s mark
merely reinforces the word portion because the halo is a
symbol associated with angels and the heart design is
associated with love.
With respect to the marks, applicant’s attorney argues
that the marks are not identical and have “very different”
connotations as well as differences in sight and sound.
Applicant also maintains that the design element is the
dominant part of its mark (brief, 7, and Request for
Reconsideration, filed May 4, 1989, 3). Also, based upon a
number of registrations and applications which contain the
words “ANGEL” or “ANGELS” and “LOVE,” applicant’s attorney
argues that these words are “diluted” and weak and that
consumers are accustomed to seeing these common English
words in the marketplace. According to applicant, these
terms are “widely used” for a variety of goods and services
and they, therefore, have little significance to the
average consumer.
The third-party registrations made of record include
ANGE D’AMOUR and design for wedding gowns, dresses, skirts,
shirts, pants, shoes, jackets, blazers and suits; ANGEL’S

has indicated that the stippling is not intended to indicate
color.
Ser. No. 75/217,869
4
LOVE for perfumes, cologne, toilet soaps, talcum powder;
LOOK LOVELY ANGEL for hair remover; and LOVE ANGELS for
clothing.
We agree with the Examining Attorney, however, that,
aside from the fact that the third-party registrations and
applications do not demonstrate use of those marks or
public awareness thereof (Smith Brothers Manufacturing Co.
v. Stone Manufacturing Co., 476 F.2d 1004, 177 USPQ 462,
463 (CCPA 1973)), the respective marks are similar in
connotation, when one takes into consideration the English
translation of the registered mark, and are otherwise
similar. In this regard, we observe that the French word
“l’amour,” meaning “love,” is probably one of the most
familiar French words known to many Americans, whether
fluent in French or not.2 Also, as the Examining Attorney
contends, the design portion of applicant’s mark
tends to reinforce the literal significance thereof.3

2 See, for example, In re American Safety Razor Co., 2 USPQ2d
1459 (TTAB 1987) (BUENOS DIAS for soap vs. GOOD MORNING for shave
cream); In re Ithaca Industries, Inc., 230 USPQ 702 (TTAB 1986)
(LUPO for underwear vs. WOLF for other items of clothing); and In
re Hub Distributing, Inc., 218 USPQ 284 (TTAB 1983) (SUN vs. EL
SOL).
3 However, we disagree with the Examining Attorney’s argument,
brief, 3, 4, that we should presume that the registrant is using
a design similar to applicant’s because registrant’s mark is
shown in typed form, and that the mark could, therefore, be
displayed in any style, including with the very same design
element. The Examining Attorney argues that we should,
therefore, give applicant’s design no trademark significance.
Ser. No. 75/217,869
5
Concerning the goods, applicant argues that its goods
are sold only through “independent sales associates”--that
is, according to applicant, through family members, friends
and acquaintances. According to applicant, its goods are
not offered in traditional retail stores. Applicant also
maintains that consumers of its goods are discriminating
and sophisticated. Finally, applicant argues that there
have been no instances of actual confusion “despite the
lengthy concurrent use of both marks.” Brief, 12.4
We agree with the Examining Attorney, however, who
argues that registrant’s and applicant’s goods are, in
part, identical (jewelry vs. various items of jewelry), and
may be sold through similar channels of trade. In this
regard, we note that there is no restriction on channels of
trade in the registration and that, therefore, we must
presume that registrant’s goods may be sold in all normal
channels of trade for those goods, including through

This argument is a misreading of the case law, which permits us
to assume that a mark presented in typed letters may be used in
various different, reasonable styles of presentation. See, for
example, Fossil Inc. v. Fossil Group, 49 USPQ2d 1452, 1454 (TTAB
1998)(“However, opposer’s registrations of the word FOSSIL in
typed drawing form do not afford opposer rights in the word
FOSSIL combined with other wording or with designs [emphasis
added].”). We have compared the two marks as registered and as
applied for, but have not assumed that registrant’s mark is or
will be presented with applicant’s design element.
4 As the Examining Attorney has pointed out, some of the cases
cited by applicant found no likelihood of confusion on the basis
of consent agreements, and are not, therefore, on point.
Ser. No. 75/217,869
6
“independent sales associates.” In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639
(TTAB 1981). Also, there is no support in this record that
consumers of the respective goods are sophisticated and
discriminating. Indeed, the Examining Attorney has made of
record evidence, consisting of photographs and catalog
excerpts, demonstrating that jewelry may be low-priced.
These goods may be purchased without much care.
Finally, with respect to the issue of the lack of
actual confusion, applicant has submitted no evidence
tending to show that registrant’s and applicant’s goods
have, in fact, been sold in the same stores, so that there
may have been an adequate opportunity for confusion to have
arisen.
We conclude, therefore, that purchasers and potential
purchasers, aware of registrant’s ANGEL D’AMOUR jewelry and
other goods, who encounter applicant’s ANGELS OF LOVE (and
design) jewelry featuring an angel motif, are likely to
attribute these goods to the same source.
Ser. No. 75/217,869
7
Decision: The refusal of registration is affirmed.
R. L. Simms
E. W. Hanak
T. E. Holtzman
Administrative Trademark
Judges, Trademark Trial
and Appeal Board