Born in the USA LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 26, 2020

87867549 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2020)

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: August 26, 2020

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Born in the USA LLC
_____

Serial No. 87867549
_____

Geoffrey M. Dureska of Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig, PLLC,
for Born in the USA LLC.

Robert Guliano, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 105,
Jennifer Williston, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Lykos, Lynch and Coggins
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Lynch, Administrative Trademark Judge:
I. Background
Born in the USA LLC (“Applicant”) seeks to register the proposed mark BORN IN
THE USA in standard characters for “bottoms as clothing; footwear; headwear; tops
as clothing” in International Class 25.1 Applicant submitted the following specimens
of use during prosecution:

1 Application Serial No. 87867549 was filed April 8, 2018, based on an allegation of intent to
use the mark in commerce under Section 1(b) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b).
Serial No. 87867549
- 2 -

The Examining Attorney refused registration under Sections 1, 2, and 45 of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051-52 and 1127, on the ground that the proposed mark
fails to function as a trademark because it is a widely used informational message,
and under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), on the ground of
likelihood of confusion with the prior registered mark BORN & BRED IN THE USA
in standard characters for a variety of clothing goods.2 When the Examining Attorney
made the refusals final, Applicant requested reconsideration and appealed. The
Examining Attorney maintained the refusals, the appeal resumed, and the case has
been fully briefed.

Applicant amended the application to proceed under Section 1(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), when
it filed an amendment to allege use on July 5, 2018.
2 Registration No. 5001008 issued on July 19, 2016.
Serial No. 87867549
- 3 -

II. Failure to Function
A. Legal Background
“The Trademark Act is not an act to register words but to register trademarks.
Before there can be registrability, there must be a trademark….” In re The Standard
Oil Co., 275 F.2d 945, 125 USPQ 227, 229 (CCPA 1960). Section 45 of the Trademark
Act defines a “trademark” as “any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination
thereof … used by a person … to identify and distinguish his or her goods … from
those manufactured or sold by others and to indicate the source of the goods, even if
that source is unknown.” See also In re Bose Corp., 546 F.2d 893, 192 USPQ 213, 216
(CCPA 1976) (“[T]he classic function of a trademark is to point out distinctively the
origin of the goods to which it is attached”).
We must assess whether Applicant’s proposed mark, BORN IN THE USA,
functions as a mark based on whether the relevant public, i.e. purchasers or potential
purchasers of Applicant’s clothing goods, would perceive BORN IN THE USA as
identifying Applicant’s goods and their source or origin. See e.g. In re TracFone
Wireless, Inc., 2019 USPQ2d 222983, *1-2 (TTAB 2019) (“The key question is whether
the asserted mark would be perceived as a source indicator for Applicant ’s [goods or]
services.”); In re Aerospace Optics, Inc., 78 USPQ2d 1861, 1862 (TTAB 2006) (“[T]he
critical inquiry is whether the asserted mark would be perceived as a source
indicator.”); In re Safariland Hunting Corp., 24 USPQ2d 1380, 1381 (TTAB 1992). In
this case, because there are no limitations to the channels of trade or classes of
consumers of the clothing identified in the application, the relevant consuming public
Serial No. 87867549
- 4 -

comprises all potential purchasers of bottoms as clothing, footwear, headwear, and
tops as clothing. See CBS Inc. v. Morrow, 708 F.2d 1579, 218 USPQ 198, 199 (Fed.
Cir. 1983); Bell’s Brewery, Inc. v. Innovation Brewing, 125 USPQ2d 1340, 1345 (TTAB
2017).
Matter that is merely informational is not registrable as a mark. See In re AOP
LLC, 107 USPQ2d 1644, 1655 (TTAB 2013) (refusal of AOP affirmed where the
specimens “present the term in an informational manner to inform consumers about
a certification process rather than as a source identifier”); In re T.S. Designs, Inc., 95
USPQ2d 1669, 1671-72 (TTAB 2010) (holding CLOTHING FACTS merely
informational and not a source identifier of clothing based on likely consumer
perception). If consumers would view a proposed mark as simply conveying
information, the proposed mark does not function as an indicator of source and cannot
be registered. For this analysis, in addition to an applicant’s specimens, we also
consider other evidence in the record. See In re Eagle Crest, Inc., 96 USPQ2d 1227,
1230 (TTAB 2010) (affirming informational refusal of ONCE A MARINE, ALWAYS
A MARINE where third-party evidence showed widespread use of the phrase and use
on “applicant’s specimens as well as its other materials would likely reinforce the
perception” of the proposed mark as informational).
B. Evidence and Analysis
The Examining Attorney argues that the proposed mark is a commonplace
message or expression that is widely used by a variety of sources, including in the
context of clothing goods such as Applicant’s, to convey an informational patriotic
Serial No. 87867549
- 5 -

sentiment of origination in the United States.3 Examples of evidence reflecting use of
the phrase to inform that goods are made in the United States (emphasis added)
include:
 An article in Reviewed titled “Born in the USA: American-Made
Appliances” states “it’s a great time to celebrate the American worker with
a rundown of the top US-made home appliances.”4
 A Sol Angeles Born in the USA T-Shirt offered on the Nordstrom Rack
website is promoted with, “Celebrate the Fourth like the freedom-loving patriot
you are in this soft, cotton USA-made shirt.”5
 The “Born in the USA Knotty Band” product webpage states “Show your
patriotic spirit with our headband that is an American Made product bearing
our symbol, our treasured flag.”6
 The webpage of the University of Connecticut’s Sports Management Program
features a “snapshot” about “Origin BJJ – American Made Gi,” with the
tagline “Weave it. Stitch it. Trim it. Born in the USA.” The company
emphasizes that its Brazilian jiu-jitsu competition gear (known as “gi”) is

3 10 TTABVUE 9 (Examining Attorney’s Brief).
4 Citations to the application record are to the TSDR downloaded .pdf format. July 25, 2018
Office Action at 8-9 (reviewed.com).
5 November 28, 2018 Office Action at 36 (nordstromrack.com). The record includes two Office
Actions dated November 28, 2018, and we cite to the TSDR downloaded .pdf format of the
second in the reverse-chronological list. This Office Action includes all the evidence in the
other Office Action of the same date, as well as evidence duplicative of the evidence in the
July 25, 2018 Office Action.
6 November 28, 2018 Office Action at 45 (tawgear.com).
Serial No. 87867549
- 6 -

American-made.7
 The website of Klein Tools includes the page “Born in the USA: An Inside
Look at Klein Plastics,” referring to the Rockford, MI plant as “one of Klein’s
seven American manufacturing plants.”8
 An article on the BMW Group website is titled “Born in the USA. Rolls-Royce
Overseas.” It describes Rolls-Royce’s popularity in the U.S. after World War I
and the company’s decision to build a second plant in the U.S. to avoid high
import duties and transportation costs, noting “A total of 2,994 Rolls-Royce
Silver Ghost and Phantom I models were made in the USA over a period of
twelve years.”9
 An article on the Albany Times Union website is titled “Born in the USA:
2012 Chevy Sonic,” and states that the vehicle “holds the distinction of being
the only subcompact made in the U.S.”10
 The Perry Ellis website (excerpts below) touts “Perry Ellis Denim: Born in the
USA.” In addition to describing jeans as “an American icon, a rugged stitch
that has helped weave a nation,” the text states that “Perry Ellis jeans are an
American product – from design stages to manufacturing.”11

7 November 28, 2018 Office Action at 46 (sport.education.uconn.edu).
8 November 28, 2018 Office Action at 47 (kleintools.com).
9 November 28, 2018 Office Action at 48 (bmwgroup-classic-heart.com).
10 November 28, 2018 Office Action at 49-50 (timesunion.com).
11 November 28, 2018 Office Action at 52-53 (perryellis.com).
Serial No. 87867549
- 7 -

12
 The KanJam website (excerpts below) bears the taglines “Born in the USA”
and “Proud to be an American-Made Product,” noting that its sporting goods
and games are not made in China like most others, and instead are examples
of “American-made manufacturing.”13

12 Id.
13 November 28, 2018 Office Action at 55 (kanjam.com).
Serial No. 87867549
- 8 -

14
 The ML Kishigo website (excerpt below) states that “[f]or the past 40 years,
ML Kishigo has been making garments in the USA.” Next to “Made in the
USA,” the text states, “[o]ur designs are born in the USA and will stay in the
USA.”15

14 Id.
15 November 28, 2018 Office Action at 56.
Serial No. 87867549
- 9 -

16
 The Mountain website has an article about U.S. production of fly fishing gear
with the headline “Born in the USA. Time tested gear for fly-fishers.” The
article opens with, “Fly fishing isn’t bringing production back to the U.S. – in
this industry, domestic manufacturing never fizzled.”17
 The Noelle Munoz website (described as “Business, Gift Ideas, Marketing”)
blog (excerpt below) includes a post titled “born in the usa” featuring a

16 Id.
17 November 28, 2018 Office Action at 59 (mountainonline.com).
Serial No. 87867549
- 10 -

“MADE IN THE USA” logo and referring both to the author’s birth in the U.S.
and her affinity for American-made products. The post states that “I want
people to know I am not having my work made over seas [sic] or buying my
materials from another country. I am making every attempt to support
America with my business….”18
19
The evidence shows that BORN IN THE USA is a widely used informational
message that goods originate from the United States. Other similar messages have
been deemed informational and unregistrable. For example, the Board held that
INVESTING IN AMERICAN JOBS for various services including retail stores failed
to function as a mark because it “is like other statements that would ordinarily be
used in business or industry, or by certain segments of the public generally, to convey
support for American-made goods, and thus would not be recognized as indicating

18 November 28, 2018 Office Action at 69-70 (noellemunozjewelry.com).
19 Id. at 69.
Serial No. 87867549
- 11 -

source and are not registrable.” In re Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 129 USPQ2d 1148, 1152
(TTAB 2019). Similarly, the Board held that PROUDLY MADE IN USA for electric
shavers and parts would be perceived not as a source indicator but instead as an
informational slogan. In re Remington Prods. Inc., 3 USPQ2d 1714, 1715 (TTAB
1987).
Applicant argues that its specimens “unequivocally demonstrate trademark use,
namely use of the mark in on [sic] the inside collar of the Applicant’s goods and upon
the product packaging.”20 Given the nature of the wording and its widespread use in
many contexts including in connection with clothing, Applicant’s manner of use of the
proposed mark on the specimens does not negate its informational nature. “[T]he
mere fact that [A]pplicant’s slogan appears on the specimens, even separate and
apart from any other indicia which appear on them, does not make it a trademark.”
Wal-Mart Stores, 129 USPQ2d at 1152 (quoting Safariland Hunting Corp., 24
USPQ2d at 1381); see also D.C. One Wholesaler v. Chien, 120 USPQ2d 1710, 1716
(TTAB 2016) (“The fact that [an applicant] has sometimes displayed [the proposed
mark] on hangtags and labels, in a non-ornamental manner that is conventional for
the display of trademarks, does not require a different result [than the failure to
function refusal].)” Regardless of Applicant’s placement of BORN IN THE USA on
the packaging or on the inner neck of a shirt, the “widespread [informational and]
ornamental use of the phrase by third parties,” and the “ubiquity of the phrase … on
apparel and other [goods] of many makers has given it a significance,” such that “it

20 8 TTABVUE 14 (Applicant’s Brief).
Serial No. 87867549
- 12 -

does not create the commercial impression of a source indicator, even when displayed
on a hangtag or label.” D.C. One Wholesaler, 120 USPQ2d at 1716. In addition, on
Applicant’s shirt specimen, its proposed mark appears with “Made in USA,”
reinforcing the informational significance. The proposed mark also is placed in close
proximity with other informational matter such as the size, fabric content, and
laundering instructions.
The Examining Attorney also submitted additional evidence regarding BORN IN
THE USA, much of which shows ornamental use of the wording emblazoned on the
front of T-shirts and other clothing offered by a wide variety of retailers.21 Although
this evidence does not directly refer to the informational message more overtly
reflected in the other evidence detailed above, it does not detract from or undermine
the informational refusal. Rather, as the Board in D.C. One Wholesaler noted in
finding a mark informational, “[t]he widespread ornamental use of the phrase by
third parties ‘is part of the environment in which the [proposed mark] is perceived by
the public and . . . may influence how the [proposed mark] is perceived.’” D.C. One
Wholesaler, 120 USPQ2d at 1716 (quoting In re Hulting, 107 USPQ2d 1175, 1178
(TTAB 2013) and In re Tilcon Warren Inc., 221 USPQ 86, 88 (TTAB 1984)).
Applicant also submitted copies of the following seven third-party registrations
that consist of or include the wording BORN IN THE USA for what Applicant
concedes are “different and unrelated goods or services.”22 According to Applicant,

21 E.g., July 25, 2018 Office Action at 10-20, 24-26; November 28, 2018 Office Action at 37-44.
22 8 TTABVUE 14 (Applicant’s Brief). Applicant also introduced the TESS record for a
cancelled registration, Registration No. 3734067. A cancelled registration is not evidence of
Serial No. 87867549
- 13 -

“there is little if any reason why BORN IN THE USA is capable of serving as a
trademark for these applications and/or registrations but cannot serve as a
trademark for the Applicant’s mark.”23
 BORN IN THE USA for various oil-related tools and machinery, and other
tools and equipment.24
 BORN IN THE USA for live plants, flower bulbs and cut flowers.25
 BORN IN THE USA for steel and steel fasteners.26
 BORN IN THE USA (disclaimer of USA) for alcoholic beverages, except beer.27
 BORN IN THE USA and (same owner) for motorcycles and structural
parts therefor.28
 for planetary gear heads.29

any existing rights in the mark, Action Temp. Servs. v. Labor Force, 870 F.2d 1563, 10
USPQ2d 1307, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 1989), and is evidence of nothing but the fact that it once
issued. Sunnen Prods. Co. v. Sunex Int’l Inc., 1 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (TTAB 1987).
23 8 TTABVUE 14 (Applicant’s Brief).
24 4 TTABVUE 21-24 (Reg. No. 4889777).
25 4 TTABVUE 25-28 (Reg. No. 4523365).
26 4 TTABVUE 29-33 (Reg. No. 5366320).
27 4 TTABVUE 41-45 (Reg. No. 5638764).
28 4 TTABVUE 13-14, 18-20 (Reg. Nos. 2863258 & 2861327).
29 4 TTABVUE 35-40 (Reg. No. 5415776).
Serial No. 87867549
- 14 -

We do not find the third-party registrations for other goods determinative. We
“must assess each mark on the record of public perception submitted with the
application.” In In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 57 USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed.
Cir. 2001). The record in this case demonstrates the informational nature of the
proposed mark and the “ubiquity of the phrase … on apparel and other [goods] of
many makers.” D.C. One Wholesaler, 120 USPQ2d at 1716. In addition, our record
does not include the specimens of use for the third-party registrations, whereas
Applicant’s shirt specimen of record places the proposed mark in close proximity to
“Made in USA,” reinforcing the informational message of the proposed mark.
Regardless, “[t]he PTO is required to examine all trademark applications for
compliance with each and every eligibility requirement, … even if the PTO earlier
mistakenly registered a similar or identical mark suffering the same defect.” In re
Cordua Rests., Inc., 823 F.3d 594, 118 USPQ2d 1632, 1635 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
C. Conclusion
We find that Applicant’s proposed mark fails to function as a source indicator for
the identified clothing goods.
Decision: We affirm the refusal to register Applicant’s proposed mark under
Sections 1, 2, and 45 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051-52 and 1127, on the
ground that it is a widely used informational message that fails to function as a
trademark. Given our decision that Applicant’s proposed mark does not function as a
mark, we need not reach the other ground of refusal based on alleged likelihood of
confusion with a prior registered mark. See Yazhong Inv. Ltd. v. Multi-Media Tech
Serial No. 87867549
- 15 -

Ventures, Ltd., 126 USPQ2d 1526, 1540 n.52 (TTAB 2018) (citing Multisorb Tech.,
Inc. v. Pactiv Corp., 109 USPQ2d 1170, 1171 (TTAB 2013)).