LAIPLALAIPLA
LAIPLALAIPLA
  • About
    • About LAIPLA
    • Ambassador Outreach Program
    • Board of Directors
    • Committees
    • Administration
    • Member Firms and Companies
    • Past Presidents
    • Recent Past Presidents
    • Public Service Award
    • Diversity Fellowship
    • Bylaws
  • Events
  • Membership
  • Sponsorship
  • Contact
  • About
    • About LAIPLA
    • Ambassador Outreach Program
    • Board of Directors
    • Committees
    • Administration
    • Member Firms and Companies
    • Past Presidents
    • Recent Past Presidents
    • Public Service Award
    • Diversity Fellowship
    • Bylaws
  • Events
  • Membership
  • Sponsorship
  • Contact

TTAB Affirms 2(a) False Association Refusal of SEAL TEAM PHYSICAL TRAINING, INC.

July 12, 2016October 22, 2024| in The TTABlog| by John L. Welch

The Board affirmed a Section 2(a) refusal of the mark SEAL TEAM PHYSICAL TRAINING, INC., in the stylized form shown below, for “consulting services in the field of fitness and exercise; physical fitness instruction” [PHYSICAL TRAINING INC. disclaimed], finding that the mark falsely suggests a connection with the Department of the Navy’s elite units known as SEAL teams or SEALs. In re Seal Team PTI Incorporated, Serial No. 86420547 (Jume 30, 2016) [not precedential].

The Board applied its standard, four-part test under Section 2(a). Examining Attorney Mark Sparacino maintained that “SEAL Team” is the name of the Navy’s elite units, and has no other recognized meaning. The record demonstrated that “SEAL Team” is a reference to members of special weapons operation and tactical units or teams in the Navy, known as SEAL (Sea-Air-Land) Teams (also known as SEAL, or Navy SEAL).

Applicant feebly contended that the mark does not point to the Navy because the term “Inc.” signifies that applicant is not a governmental entity and the word “team” refers to the team-oriented nature of its fitness program. The Board was unimpressed, observing that “the addition of matter to the name of an institution does not avoid the commercial impression that the mark is a close approximation of the institution.”

Next, applicant argued that the term “Seal Team” does not uniquely pointing to the Navy, relying on two existing registrations for a logo mark includes the words PADI SEAL TEAM, for diving instruction services, and an associated website. The Board, however, found that this single use was insufficient to defeat “the contrary evidence that there is a unique and unmistakable association of ‘SEAL Team’ with elite units of the Navy.”

As to the third factor, applicant did not dispute that it is not connected with the Navy or its SEAL units.

The fourth factor looks to whether the elite units of the Navy are of such renown that when the mark SEAL TEAM PHYSICAL TRAINING INC. is used with applicant’s services, consumers will understand “SEAL Team” as referring to these elite units and that a connection or association with these units will be presumed.

Applicant argued that “no rational person would sign up for physical fitness training with the Applicant under the assumption that he or she is joining the U.S. Navy SEALs or that he or she would actually be trained by active duty SEALS.” The Board pointed out, however, that the question is whether consumers would presume a connection with the Navy units.

The Navy offers, as part of its recruiting efforts and outreach program, an athletic and fitness event for the public. It provides SEAL training engagements to athletic clubs, colleges, and universities. Applicant and other companies offer fitness programs using SEAL training methods. Moreover, applicant’s website states that applicant was founded by a former Navy SEAL and offers SEAL-type workout by trainers who may be former SEALS.

In view of these recruiting and outreach efforts of the Navy, the public would assume that the Navy has an interest in sponsoring, approving, or supporting activities like applicant’s. The Board therefore found that the public would presume a connection between applicant and the SEALS, i.e., that the Navy approves or endorses applicant’s services.

The Board therefore concluded that applicant’s mark falsely suggests a connection with the Navy’s elite SEAL units, and it affirmed the refusal under Section 2(a).

IP Blog Categories

  • Announcements
  • Events
  • LAIPLA News
  • The TTABlog
  • Uncategorized
  • Wegner's Top 10
  • Wegner's Writings

Archives

Previous

TTAB Finds 1.0, 1.25, and 1.5 Generic For Cigarette Rolling Papers

Next

WYHA? BEST PROTEIN Merely Descriptive of Nutritional Supplements, Says TTAB


Since 1934, LAIPLA has been educating and connecting members of the local intellectual property legal community

Pages

About 
Events
Membership
Sponsorship
Contact
Privacy Policy

Search
Contact

LAIPLA
1621 W 25th Street
Box 633
San Pedro, CA 90732
Phone: (323) 285-1654
Fax: ( 310) 878-0517
Email: office@laipla.net

© 2025 Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association. All Rights Reserved | Website design by Arclight Digital.