A “Giant” Decision: Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Denies Registration of “G-Men” to the New York Giants


It’s not just the Redskins anymore!  Following the cancellation of the Redskins trademark earlier this summer, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has issued another football related decision regarding the New York Giants’ trademark of their commonly used nickname, the “G-Men.”

In a decision rendered this past month, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) has declined to allow the New York Giants to register the phrase “G-Men” for use in the sale of shirts and other related apparel.  According to the TTAB, the fame of the team’s nickname was insufficient to provide a limitation on an overly broad application.

The Giants attempted to register the phrase for use on “shirts, T-shirts, and tops.”  Although the application overlapped with a pre-existing mark for “G-Man Sport,” the Giants argued that their nickname was so famous that there was no likelihood of confusion when used in relation to football.  However, precedent requires the board to look at the goods and services covered by an application broadly, rather than simply addressing the goods the mark is actually used to sell.  As a result, the TTAB rejected the Giants argument, stating, “when there is no specific limitation in the description of goods and nothing inherent in the nature of applicant’s mark that restricts applicant’s usage to football related merchandise or the promotion of a particular football team, the board may not read such limitations into the application.”  The Giants argument that the fame of their nickname would narrow the limitation of the mark to football-related merchandise was flawed, as it would not work if the consumers were not football fans.  As a result, the TTAB found that the likelihood of confusion analysis must consider all possible consumers for the goods identified, as well as all possible channels of trade.  As a result, although the USPTO permitted the Giants to obtain a registration for the mark for football-specific services, the mark could not be registered for such a broad group of products.

The TTAB’s ruling highlights the importance of having a specific limitation on the goods a mark will be used for, as well as the importance of looking at all possible consumers and channels of trade when determining whether a mark can be registered.

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Glaser Weil IP File | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.