The Examining Attorney relied on dictionary definitions of “performance,” on 17 websites excerpts showing common use of “PERFORMANCE” to describe supplements and energy foods that supposedly improve athletic performance (some describing a category of “performance” supplements, on other websites that describe the function or purpose of supplements as enhancing athletic performance, and on 34 registrations for relevant goods and in which the word was disclaimed.
Applicant Shaklee argued that PERFORMANCE “evokes an array of products, ranging from car parts to sports equipment,” that seventeen third-party websites is “de mimimus” (sic!), and that no competitor calls its product “PERFORMANCE.” It also pointed to seven registrations for relevant products, in which the word was not disclaimed. Finally Shaklee pointed to its prior 2(f) registration for PERFORMANCE for “powdered concentrate for making an electrolytic soft drink” and two registrations for SHAKLEE PERFORMANCE for that powdered concentrate and for various supplements.
The Board agreed with the Examining Attorney. It found that applicant’s goods goods fall within the category of “performance” supplements. Contrary to Shaklee’s argument, the mark must be considered in the context of the involved goods, not in the abstract. Furthermore, “performance” describes the purpose or function of the goods.
[A consumer] would immediately perceive that nutritional supplements bearing the mark PERFORMANCE are intended to improve athletic performance. That is why third-party competitors such as Gatorade and Kaged Muscle use the term “performance” descriptively: nutritional supplements are perceived as performance-enhancing. And that is why 34 third parties have registered marks for nutritional supplements with “performance” disclaimed.
As to Shaklee’s prior registrations, the PERFORMANCE registration issued under Section 2(f), and thus conceded the word’s descriptiveness in the context of the goods. The SHAKLEE PERFORMANCE registrations may have issued without disclaimers because it was assumed that the SHAKLEE portion would distinguish its products from others. In any case, each application must be examined on its own record, and the Board is not bound by prior decisions of examining attorneys in other applications.
And so the Board affirmed the refusal.
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog comment: How was your performance?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2020.