Key Takeaways: Descriptive additions to composite trademarks, especially those disclaimed by the applicant, will rarely overcome a Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion where the dominant term is identical. Critically, arguments about a consumer’s perception of a mark must be supported by evidence in the record, not solely through a creative theory.
In a May 2026 decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) affirmed a refusal to register the mark GRUPPO VAVA for general apparel, finding a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark VAVA for lingerie. While the case presents a relatively straightforward Section 2(d) analysis, it offers a useful reminder of how descriptive wording and evidentiary gaps can shape a case’s outcome.
Case Facts
ADG Vanguard sought to register GRUPPO VAVA for a wide range of apparel, excluding lingerie or intimate apparel. The Examining Attorney refused registration based on an existing registration for VAVA covering lingerie, prompting an appeal to the TTAB.
The Board’s Analysis
A. Relatedness of Goods
The Board had little trouble concluding the goods were related. Even though the Applicant excluded lingerie from their description, the record included evidence that clothing and lingerie are commonly associated with the same source, including third-party trademark registrations and retailer websites offering both under the same mark. This reinforced the principle that goods do not need to be identical, but rather only related in a way that could cause consumers to assume a common source.
B. Trade Channels and Consumers
Because neither the application nor the cited registration contained restrictions, the Board presumed the goods traveled through the same trade channels to the same classes of consumers. With no rebuttal from the applicant, this factor also favored likely confusion.
C. Similarity of the Marks
The most instructive portion of the decision lies in the comparison of GRUPPO VAVA and VAVA. The Board noted that consumers focus on the dominant portion of a mark and may even shorten composite marks accordingly. Although not identical, both marks incorporate “VAVA” in full. The additional term “GRUPPO” (Italian for “group”) was disclaimed as descriptive and carries limited source-identifying weight. Accordingly, the Board found “VAVA” to be the dominant, source-identifying portion of GRUPPO VAVA, noting consumers would “almost certainly” refer to the mark simply as VAVA.
The applicant attempted to distinguish the marks based on connotation: VAVA evokes sexiness through “va-va-voom,” while GRUPPO VAVA appears neutral or Italian. The Board rejected this argument because the applicant provided no supporting consumer evidence. The Board further undermined the distinction by noting “sexiness” is subjective. They argue that some registered apparel (for example, dresses, skirts, shirts, blouses, and shorts) may be perceived as sexy, while some lingerie (for example, sleepwear) may not. The Board suggested the Applicant’s argument might have carried more weight with evidentiary support showing consumers perceive this connotative difference.
In conclusion, with similar marks, related goods, and overlapping trade channels, the Board found no countervailing factors and affirmed the refusal. Even modest differences in wording will not save a mark where the dominant term and the subsequent evidentiary record point toward confusion.
Co-Author: Halle Schaffer (Rising 3L Law Student at the University of Southern California)
Subscribe for News and Updates
