# The Board of Trustees of The University of Alabama and Mr. Paul W. Bryant Jr. v. William Pitts Jr. and Christopher Blackburn

> Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · July 23, 2013

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11283763

## Case

- **Court:** Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
- **Decided:** July 23, 2013
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion by Kuczma
- **Judges:** Zervas, Bergsman, Kuczma
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11283763

## Opinion text

THIS OPINION IS A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB

Hearing: Mailed:
March 29, 2012 July 23, 2013

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

The Board of Trustees of The University of Alabama and
Paul W. Bryant, Jr.
v.
William Pitts, Jr. and Christopher Blackburn
_____

Opposition No. 91187103
Serial No. 77342852
_____

R. Charles Henn, Jr., Alicia Grahn Jones and Nichole Davis Chollet of Kilpatrick
Townsend & Stockton LLP for Opposers The Board of Trustees of The University of
Alabama and Paul W. Bryant Jr.

Jerry L. Watts of Page, Scrantom, Sprouse, Tucker & Ford, P.C. for Applicants
William Pitts, Jr. and Christopher Blackburn.
_____

Before Zervas, Bergsman and Kuczma, Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Kuczma, Administrative Trademark Judge:

On the field for this contest are a university’s alleged common law rights in a

crimson and white color scheme, and a houndstooth pattern, versus an application

for registration of a trademark that contains the word “houndstooth” and a

houndstooth background pattern. The clash finds the University of Alabama, and
Opposition No. 91187103

Paul W. Bryant, Jr., son of legendary Alabama football coach Paul W. Bryant, a/k/a

“Coach Bear Bryant”’ (“Coach Bryant”), teaming up as challengers.

William Pitts, Jr. and Christopher Blackburn (“applicants”) take the field as

joint applicants who have filed a use-based application to register the stylized mark

shown below for “shirts, hats” in International Class 25.1

Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark and the word “houndstooth” is

disclaimed.

The Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama (the “University”), and

Mr. Paul W. Bryant, Jr. (“Bryant Jr.”), as representative of the estate of Paul W.

Bryant (“Bryant’s estate”), (collectively “opposers”) filed a notice of opposition on

1 Application Serial No. 77342852 was filed under § 1(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.

§ 1051(a), on December 3, 2007, alleging dates of first use and first use in commerce of
September 1, 2007 (“applicants’ mark”). The identification of goods in the initial
application was: “Pants; Shirts; Shoes; Undergarments.” In a March 19, 2008 Response to
Office Action, the identification was amended to “shirts; hats.” This amendment does not
appear to conform to the USPTO’s Rules of Practice set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 2.71(a) as “hats”
were not included in the original identification of goods and, the signature on the Office
Action response does not conform to the requirements in 37 C.F.R. § 2.193(e)(2).
Accordingly, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 2.131, in the event applicants ultimately prevail in
this proceeding, the application will be remanded to the examining attorney for
reexamination of the application in light of the foregoing.

2
Opposition No. 91187103

October 22, 2008.2 As their amended grounds for opposition, opposers allege

priority and likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act of

1946, 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), based on their longstanding and extensive use of a

houndstooth pattern (the “Houndstooth Pattern” mark) that “has come to identify

Coach Bryant and the University’s goods and educational and athletic services,”

and a crimson and white color scheme used by the University.3 Opposers also allege

that applicants’ mark – due to its inclusion of a pattern as a background for the

wording in the mark – references the houndstooth hat worn by Coach Bryant at

Alabama football games and that applicants’ mark falsely suggests a connection

with the University and Coach Bryant and disparages the University and Coach

Bryant and brings them into contempt or disrepute under § 2(a) of the Trademark

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a).4

2 For purposes of this decision, we treat Bryant Jr. and the estate of Coach Bear Bryant as

representing the same legal interests. See footnote 47 infra.
3 See First Amended Notice of Opposition ¶¶ 7-11 (Docket # 6) (“Docket #” corresponds to

the index number listing indicated in TTABVUE).
4 Opposers’ amended notice of opposition also alleged that applicants’ mark was procured by

fraud because applicants did not use the mark in commerce in connection with “pants,
shoes, and undergarments” as of the filing date of the application and applicants failed to
comply with 37 C.F.R. § 2.33(a), which requires that an application must be signed by a
person properly authorized to sign on behalf of the applicants. Inasmuch as neither party
submitted any arguments related to either of these additional grounds, we deem these
grounds to be waived. See Knight Textile Corp. v. Jones Investment Co., 75 USPQ2d 1313,
1314 n.4 (TTAB 2005) (where opposer presented no arguments in its brief regarding the
claim of dilution, opposer is deemed to have waived the claim). Additionally, applicants’
alleged failure to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 2.33(a) is an ex parte matter that is not a proper
ground for opposition. See Flash & Partners S.P.A. v. I.E. Manufacturing LLC, 95 USPQ2d
1813, 1816-17 (TTAB 2010); Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of America, 10
USPQ2d 2034, 2035 (TTAB 1989) and TBMP § 309.03(c) [Note 2] (3d ed. rev. 2 2013).

3
Opposition No. 91187103

In their amended answer, applicants responded pro se denying the salient

allegations, and clarifying that Linda Parkinson Pitts5 was authorized to act on

applicants’ behalf in connection with the application. They also admitted that the

only goods on which the mark was used were “shirts and hats” which mirror the

amendment to the application made on March 19, 2008. At trial and during the

briefing period, applicants were represented by counsel.

A. Opposers’ Motion to Exclude Applicants’ Evidence

Applicants introduced websites and Internet search results as evidence of

third-party uses of a houndstooth pattern. Opposers have moved to exclude this

evidence, contending it is not relevant because it fails to demonstrate the extent of

use by the third parties.6 Inasmuch as this evidence is relevant to the question

5 Applicant William Pitts, Jr.’s wife, Linda Parkinson Pitts, signed the initial application

and the March 19, 2008 Response to Office Action during prosecution of the application.
Applicants testified that Mrs. Pitts had authority to act on their behalf. Pitts, Jr. 3/31/09
Dep. pp. 33-37, Exhibits 16 and 17 Opposers’ Notice of Reliance (“OPPS NOR”) 0252-263.
(Docket # 29).
6 Although opposers identified TBMP § 800-7 as the basis for their motion to exclude
submitted with their Trial Brief, there is no such section in the TBMP. However, TBMP
§ 801.03 permits such evidentiary objections to be raised in an appendix or separate
statement of objections to a party’s trial brief. The following evidence is the subject of
opposers’ motion to exclude: Applicants’ NOR Exhibit A (APP NOR 001-014), Exhibit B
(pages APP NOR 015-017 and APP NOR 021-025), Exhibit D (pages APP NOR 043-050)
and Exhibit H (APP NOR 073-091) (Docket # 34). Portions of applicants’ Notice of Reliance,
namely, Exhibit B (pages APP NOR 018-020), Exhibit C (APP NOR 026-042), and Exhibit E
(APP NOR 057-58) (Docket # 34), and their Supplemental Notice of Reliance including the
Watts, Pitts and Forsythe Declarations (Docket ## 47-50), were stricken in the Board’s
March 1, 2011 Order. Accordingly, this evidence has not been considered.
Opposers have not challenged the admissibility of the following exhibits filed by applicants
which are in evidence: Applicants’ Notice of Reliance Exhibit D (APP NOR pages 051-056),
Exhibit F (APP NOR 059-067) and Exhibit G (APP NOR 068-072) (Docket # 34).
Additionally, based on our ruling on opposers’ motion, applicants’ following exhibits are also
admitted into evidence: Applicants’ Notice of Reliance Exhibit A (APP NOR 001-014),
Exhibit B (APP NOR 015-016, 021-025), Exhibit D (APP NOR 043-050), and Exhibit H
(APP NOR 073-091) (Docket # 34).
4
Opposition No. 91187103

whether opposers have shown acquired distinctiveness in their alleged Houndstooth

Pattern mark, opposers’ motion is denied.

As discussed more fully in Section E.3(a) below, because opposers assert

trademark rights in the unregistered Houndstooth Pattern mark, which is not

inherently distinctive, they bear the burden of proving that their alleged mark has

acquired distinctiveness. Otto Roth & Co., Inc. v. Universal Foods Corp., 640 F.2d

1317, 1320, 209 USPQ 40, 43 (CCPA 1981) and 2 J. Thomas McCarthy, MCCARTHY

ON TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION § 15:32 (4th ed. June 2013) (the burden

of proof of acquired distinctiveness is upon the party trying to establish legal

protection for the mark). To the extent applicants’ third-party evidence shows use

of a houndstooth pattern for goods similar to those sold by opposers, it challenges

the existence of acquired distinctiveness in the alleged Houndstooth Pattern mark.

Applicants’ third-party evidence consisting of website excerpts featuring

houndstooth products offered for sale online is clearly admissible. Unlike the third-

party registrations criticized in Scarves by Vera, Inc. v. Todo Imports Ltd. (Inc.), 544

F.2d 1167, 1173, 192 USPQ 289, 294 (2d Cir. 1976), cited by opposers, applicants’

website excerpts evidence actual promotion and use of a houndstooth pattern to sell

products online.

The TriStar case cited by opposers notes one way applicants can prove

opposers’ alleged Houndstooth Pattern mark was not used exclusively, specifically,

by showing third-party uses that compete with opposers’ mark, and that third-party

uses of the mark were “well promoted” or that the third parties’ marks were

5
Opposition No. 91187103

“recognized by consumers.” Tri-Star Pictures, Inc. v. Unger, 14 F.Supp2d 339, 353,

(S.D.N.Y. 1998), quoting Scarves by Vera, 192 USPQ at 1173.

The context of applicants’ third-party evidence demonstrates its relevance.

The website ehoundstooth.com contains images of products covered with

houndstooth patterns offered for sale on the same page (APP NOR-003) as products

bearing the University’s “Stylized A logo.” The “About Us” page at

houndstoothhut.com (APP NOR 005-012) states that it launched in 2007 with the

intention of “designing and distributing houndstooth products for Alabama fans! . . .

operates a game day location . . . during all University of Alabama home games.

Our products are distributed . . . through out [sic] the state of Alabama.

Houndstooth Hut has quickly become the number one distributor of original

houndstooth designs for Alabama fans.” This site offers houndstooth products as

well as items targeted to Alabama fans including books about Coach Bear Bryant

and Alabama SEC Champion t-shirts. The crimsonhoundstooth.com site (APP NOR

013-014) offers Alabama t-shirts, and t-shirts bearing an image of a patterned

fedora,7 identifying its physical address at Crimson Houndstooth, in Anniston,

Alabama.

To the extent applicants’ third-party Internet evidence indicates that

products bearing a houndstooth pattern are offered for sale and marketed in the

7 Fedora: n. a soft felt hat with a curled brim, worn with the crown creased lengthwise.

[1885-90, Amer.; said to be named after Fédora, play by Victorien Sardou (1831-1908)]. The
Random House Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition. Unabridged. 1987.
The Board may take judicial notice of dictionary definitions, Univ. of Notre Dame du Lac v.
J.C. Gourmet Food Imp. Co., 213 USPQ 594, 596 (TTAB 1982), aff'd, 703 F.2d 1372, 217
USPQ 505 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

6
Opposition No. 91187103

same channel of trade as opposers’ products, i.e., in Alabama and via the Internet,

to the same types of customers, i.e., to fans of the University or its football team,

and in connection with domain names containing the word “houndstooth,” the

evidence is relevant to show third-party use.8 Cf. Palm Bay Imports Inc. v. Veuve

Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1693

(Fed. Cir. 2005) (probative value of third-party trademarks depends on usage;

probative value of Beverage Media Guide distributed to trade was minimal because

it did not evidence consuming public’s awareness that term was used for other

products). Because the products shown in the third-party websites are the type of

products sold by the University online, there is at least a reasonable likelihood that

they would be sought after and found on such websites by fans of the University.

Where, as here, the third-party uses consist of websites selling competitive

products, they evidence public awareness of houndstooth patterns originating with

parties other than opposers and are probative of the lack of acquired distinctiveness

in opposers’ alleged Houndstooth Pattern mark. See In re Reed Elsevier Properties

8 Applicants’ evidence shows the URL (i.e., Internet address) of the document and the date

the document was printed. Printouts of Internet webpages may be made of record by notice
of reliance, without requiring the testimony of the witness printing out the webpages to
introduce and authenticate them. See Safer Inc. v. OMS Investments Inc., 94 USPQ2d
1031, 1039 (TTAB 2010). Internet evidence, similar to printed publications, is only
admissible for what it shows on its face. Because applicants’ submission does not fall
within an exception to the hearsay rule, it will not be considered to prove the truth of any
matter stated therein. See, e.g., 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1717 n.2
(TTAB 2007) (materials made of record by notice of reliance under 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(e) not
admissible for the truth of the matters contained therein, unless a competent witness has
testified to the truth of such matters); Midwest Plastic Fabricators Inc. v. Underwriters
Laboratories Inc., 12 USPQ2d 1267, 1270 n.5 (TTAB 1989) (annual report in evidence only
for what it showed on its face), aff’d, 906 F.2d 1568, 15 USPQ2d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Thus, the websites are probative evidence that the websites exist and offer the products for
sale.

7
Opposition No. 91187103

Inc., 482 F.3d 1376, 1380, 82 USPQ2d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (third-party

websites are competent sources to show likely perception of website content).

In view of opposers’ asserted rights to the Houndstooth Pattern mark on all

products sold in Alabama,9 the pages from the houndstoothsportsbar.com website

(APP NOR 021-025) are also admissible. The site, which advertises a sports bar

and features a cartoon-like logo of a dog sitting in a dog house wearing a

houndstooth patterned hat, offers apparel items bearing the dog logo for sale. The

site contains references to the “Alabama Crimson Tide” (a nickname for the

University) and contents of the site indicate the bar is located in Tuscaloosa,

Alabama, the same city where the University is located. Similarly, the page from

varsityvests.com (APP NOR 050) is admissible to show that garters identified as

“University of Alabama Houndstooth Garter” in a houndstooth pattern are being

offered for sale on the Internet and are targeted to Alabama fans.

Collectively, these sites are relevant because they serve to indicate that

houndstooth products are available for purchase on the Internet and targeted to

fans of the University. The absence of information as to whether the sites were well

promoted or highly visited, or how consumers actually perceived the sites, is

something that we take into consideration in ascertaining the weight to be given to

such evidence.

Opposers also object to the printouts of blog excerpts (APP NOR 073-086) and

Internet search results for the term “houndstooth mafia” (APP NOR 087-091) on the

9 See Opposers’ Trial Brief p. 9, fn. 3.

8
Opposition No. 91187103

same grounds raised for the foregoing websites. The blog excerpts and search

results are relevant to show third-party use and public perception of the term

“houndstooth mafia,” and are therefore admissible.10

Lastly, opposers object to applicants’ Exhibit B (APP NOR 015-020) which

consists of pages from the houndstoothcondos.com website and a document entitled

Condominium Purchase Contract. While the webpages are admissible, there is no

showing that the Condominium Purchase Contract is admissible as a publicly

available printed publication or as obtained from a website. Accordingly, the

Contract (APP NOR 018-020) has not been considered. See 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(e) and

TBMP § 704.08(a) (3d ed. rev. 2012).

B. The Record

The Appendix to this decision lists the contents of the entire record in this

case. We have carefully considered all of the parties’ arguments and evidence in the

record, even if not specifically discussed herein, and our findings of fact are based

on such evidence.

10 While Internet search results frequently do not provide sufficient probative information,

they are admissible to the extent applicant Pitts testified as to his familiarity with, and his
postings on, some of the websites identified in the search results. (Pitts, Jr. 3/21/2011 Dep.
pp. 47-53, Docket # 59). We consider the absence of evidence as to the extent of distribution
of this web material, and the extent of participation reflected in these blogs, in determining
the weight to be accorded this evidence.
Opposers also object to this evidence on the ground that it was not cited in Applicants’
Brief. This evidence was properly filed via a notice of reliance and is relevant to the
arguments made at pages 5 and 35 of Applicants’ Brief.

9
Opposition No. 91187103

C. Findings of Fact

1. Opposers

Located in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, the University of Alabama was founded in

1831 and, in recent years, has been ranked as one of the nation’s top 50 public

universities by US News & World Report. The University has an expansive sports

program and is a member of the National Collegiate Athletic Association and the

Southeastern Conference (“SEC”). Over the years, the University’s football teams

have won thirteen national championships,11 twenty-one conference championships,

and participated in more than 57 college football bowl games.12 The University has

utilized a crimson and white color scheme for more than 100 years in connection

with its sports teams, promotional materials, and collateral products and began

licensing its crimson and white color scheme as early as 1984.13

Paul “Bear” Bryant, the legendary coach of the University’s football team

from 1958-1982, retired from coaching at the University having more than 320

wins, at the time, the most wins of any major college football coach, including six

national championships, and an unprecedented thirteen conference championships.

11 We take judicial notice that the University’s football teams have now won an impressive

fifteen national championships.
12 Gaston Testimony Dep. pp. 9-12 (Docket # 37).

13 Gaston Testimony Dep. pp. 25-32 (Docket # 37), Exhibits 28-39 OPPS’ NORT 0912-1003

(Docket ## 38-39) [Note: NORT is the abbreviation utilized by opposers to identify
deposition testimony and accompanying exhibits that were filed via a Notice of Filing of
Testimony]; Drucker 5/20/10 Dep. p. 18-19 (Docket # 41).

10
Opposition No. 91187103

He was named National Coach of the Year three times and SEC Coach of the Year

eight times.14

During most football games from 1964-1982, many of which were televised

nationally, and at public appearances on behalf of the University, Coach Bryant

wore patterned fedora hats that included houndstooth, plaids and checkered fabric

designs. He appeared on the cover of national magazines and in newspaper articles

published across the country wearing fedoras of houndstooth and non-houndstooth

fabric patterns.15

Coach Bryant’s legacy has been memorialized at the University by, inter alia,

the renaming of the University’s stadium to Bryant-Denny Stadium, naming of an

athletic dormitory and a continuing education conference center after Coach Bryant,

placement outside the Stadium of a statue of the Coach wearing a patterned fedora

hat, and establishing the Paul W. Bryant Museum honoring Coach Bryant, utilizing

a logo for the Museum that includes Coach Bryant wearing a patterned fedora.16

14 Bryant, Jr. Testimony Dep. pp. 8-10. (Docket # 35); Gaston Testimony Dep. pp. 17-18
(Docket # 37).
15Bryant, Jr. Testimony Dep. pp. 10-11 (Docket # 35). Although Bryant, Jr. and other
witnesses testified that Coach Bryant wore a houndstooth hat, clearly some of the hats
worn by Coach Bryant and pictured in the evidence were not houndstooth (see definition
and image of “houndstooth” in section E.3(a) below). See e.g., Bryant, Jr. Testimony Dep.
Exhibit 81 OPPS’ NORT 1602, 1605, 1611, 1612, 1618, 1621 (Docket # 35); Gaddy
Testimony Dep. Exhibit 52 OPPS’ NORT 1209, 1218, 1224, 1229, 1238, 1240-1242, 1247,
1248, 1255, 1256, 1262-1264, 1269, 1270, 1274, 1280, 1281, Exhibit 53 OPPS’ NORT 1288,
1292, 1293, 1300, Exhibit 59 OPPS’ NORT 1317, 1319, Exhibit 62 OPPS’ NORT 1323,
Exhibit 65 OPPS’ NORT 1331 (Docket # 36) and Blackburn 3/31/09 Dep. Exhibit 4 OPPS’
NORT 138, 140-142 (Docket # 29).
16 Bryant, Jr. Testimony Dep. pp. 13-14 (Docket # 35); Gaddy Testimony Dep. p. 17 (Docket

# 36); Gaston Testimony Dep. p. 22, Exhibit 20 OPPS’ NORT 495 (Docket # 37).

11
Opposition No. 91187103

Based on the physical evidence presented, it is not possible to discern whether the

fedora hats on the statue and in the Museum logo embody a houndstooth pattern.

The Paul W. Bryant Museum opened on the University’s campus in 1988, is

owned by the University and is operated in collaboration with Coach Bryant’s

estate. It is open to the public and the total attendance from the time it opened

through July 2009 was in excess of 370,000 visitors.17 Shortly before its opening in

1988, the Museum began using a logo containing the words PAUL W. BRYANT

MUSEUM and a likeness of Coach Bryant wearing a patterned fedora. The

Museum logo is used on the Museum’s signage, website, promotional materials, and

advertising, and on apparel and collateral items, some of which are sold on its

website.18 The Museum offered houndstooth fedoras for sale on its website at least

as early as March 27, 2009. A webpage from the Museum’s online store dated May

2010 shows a link entitled “Houndstooth Collection” displaying an image of a

houndstooth fedora, but there are no images or testimony regarding the meaning of

“Houndstooth Collection” or whether products having a houndstooth pattern are

sold under that link.19

Fifteen years ago, the United States Postal Service issued a commemorative

stamp featuring an image of Coach Bryant wearing a patterned fedora.20 However,

17 Gaddy Testimony Dep. pp. 7-9 (Docket # 36).

18 Blackburn 3/31/09 Dep. p. 30; Gaddy Testimony Dep. pp. 17-20, Exhibits 49, 65, 68-70,

OPPS’ NORT 1195, 1330-1333, 1339-1355 (Docket # 36).
19 Gaddy Testimony Dep. p. 19, Exhibit 67 OPPS’ NORT 1338 (Docket # 36).

20 Bryant, Jr. Testimony Dep. pp. 15-16 (Docket # 35), Gaddy Testimony Dep. pp. 16-17,

Exhibit 64 OPPS’ NORT 1329 (Docket #36).

12
Opposition No. 91187103

the stamps were released only in the state of Alabama and it is unclear whether the

pattern shown on Coach Bryant’s fedora is in fact houndstooth.

Coach Bryant is well-known in the context of college football for wearing a

patterned fedora that is most frequently covered by a houndstooth pattern and the

media continued to associate him with a houndstooth hat years after his death in

1983.21 Fans of the University’s football team also associate the houndstooth fedora

with Coach Bryant.22

21 Blackburn 3/31/09 Dep. p. 27 (Docket # 29); Gaston Testimony Dep. p 22, Exhibit 21
NORT 496-853 (Docket ## 37-38). The articles show that Coach Bryant is well-known for
wearing houndstooth fedoras: “[caption] Readily recognizable by his checkered hat, Coach
Bryant . . . Alabama Alumni News November-December 1973, OPPS’ NORT 503-505;
“[caption] Bear Bryant was known for winning–and known by his houndstooth-checkered
hat.” 1/27/83 Star-News, Pasadena, CA, OPPS’ NORT 537; “Bryant, who made Alabama
football and houndstooth check hats famous while winning more games . . .” 12/16/82
Boston Globe, OPPS’ NORT 583; “ . . . when the sight of Bear Bryant’s houndstooth hat was
enough to make Tide opponents concede.” 11/13, 86 Orlando Sentinel, OPPS’ NORT 602;
“No one projected a bigger image than the man in the houndstooth hat.” 9/10/87 Dallas
Morning News, OPPS’ NORT 617-618; “Bear Bryant spent 24 years coaching at Alabama,
becoming a legend in a houndstooth hat.” 3/20/92 Roanoke Times, OPPS’ NORT 645; “In the
Paul W. Bryant Museum, visitors ask to see Bear Bryant’s houndstooth, perhaps the most
famous hat in football, by name;” [caption] “Coaches such as Tom Landry, right, and Bear
Bryant, inset, wore fedoras during the hat’s fashion heyday.” 1/1/02 Sarasota Herald
Tribune, OPPS’ NORT 704; “Alabama conjures memories of Bear Bryant studying practice
from his tower and walking the sidelines in his signature houndstooth hat.” 9/6/02 The
Associated Press State & Local Wire, OPPS’ NORT 712; “. . . in the years before Bryant and
his houndstooth fedora became college football trademarks.” 8/29/04 San Antonio Express-
News, OPPS’ NORT 729; “And Alabama hasn’t enjoyed anything resembling consistent
dominance since Bear Bryant hung up his houndstooth fedora.” 11/16/07 The Washington
Times, OPPS’ NORT 781; “But the six-time national champion football program has long
been king at the Southeastern Conference school, where Paul “Bear” Bryant once roamed
the sidelines in his trademark houndstooth hat.” 3/28/09 Associated Press Online, OPPS’
NORT 810; “You won’t ever catch Saban wearing the houndstooth hat that was the symbol
of Alabama’s revered icon Paul ‘Bear’ Bryant.” 12/6/09 Miami Herald, OPPS’ NORT 835.
22 Bryant, Jr. Testimony Dep. p. 17 (Docket # 35); Gaston Testimony Dep. p. 24 (Docket

# 37); Blackburn 3/31/09 Dep. p. 27 (Docket # 29).

13
Opposition No. 91187103

Paul W. Bryant, Jr., is the son of Coach Bryant.23 There is no evidence that

Coach Bryant or Bryant, Jr. ever sold items bearing the houndstooth pattern. The

University first used a houndstooth pattern in 1983 when it applied stickers

bearing a houndstooth pattern to football players’ helmets to commemorate Coach

Bryant who passed away earlier that year. Two decades later, in the 2006 football

game played against “Ole Miss,” the University’s players wore football jerseys

having a houndstooth pattern around the neck opening to commemorate Coach

Bear Bryant and these jerseys were offered for sale to the public.24 In 2009, some of

the University’s football players wore houndstooth gloves in the Sugar Bowl game.25

Although the University currently sells a variety of apparel products bearing the

houndstooth pattern, it is unclear when it first started selling such products.

The University approved designs for apparel having a houndstooth pattern,

submitted by Nike to the University in 2006, and also licensed apparel items with

the houndstooth pattern that year.26 A webpage dated 3/24/09 from the University’s

website is the earliest evidence of the University offering to sell products bearing

the houndstooth pattern. The baseball caps and t-shirts shown on the webpage

bear the University’s “Stylized A” trademark.27 By May 2010, the University was

23 Bryant, Jr. Testimony Dep. pp. 16-18 (Docket # 35).

24 Blackburn 3/31/09 Dep. p. 43 (Docket # 29); Pitts Jr. 3/31/09 Dep. p. 80 (Docket # 29);

Gaston Testimony Dep. p. 20 (Docket # 37).
25 Gaston Testimony Dep. p. 20 (Docket # 37).

26 Drucker 5/20/10 Dep. pp. 16-17, Exhibit 76 OPPS’ NORT 1405-14007 (Docket # 41).

27 Gaston Testimony Dep. pp. 23-24, Exhibit 24 NORT 862-863 (Docket ## 37, 38); the URL

and printed date for the webpage shown in Exhibit 24 are partially obliterated. However,
Exhibit 24 appears to be the same webpage as shown in Exhibit 8 OPPS’ NOR 146-147 to
the Blackburn 3/31/09 Deposition (Docket # 29) which displays the following:
14
Opposition No. 91187103

licensing and selling apparel having a houndstooth pattern including t-shirts, sweat

shirts, jerseys and various styles of hats and caps.28 All of the houndstooth apparel

items shown in the evidence bear some indicia of the University such as its

“Stylized A,” “Alabama,” “Bama,” or “Crimson Tide” trademarks. The University

sells its licensed apparel online, on eBay, at local shops and nationwide retail

outlets, and at locations near the University’s stadium during its football games.29

2. Applicants

Applicants are fans of the University and Coach Bryant and have attended

numerous football games at the University.30 Applicant Blackburn owns a custom

embroidery shop and applicant Pitts, Jr. is a sergeant with the Phenix City

(Alabama) Fire Department. Applicants entered into a “handshake deal” with each

other to sell products bearing the HOUNDSTOOTH MAFIA and Design mark.31

Prior to the University’s use of the commemorative jerseys in 2006,

applicants distributed t-shirts bearing their HOUNDSTOOTH MAFIA and Design

mark to friends and other fans tailgating during the University’s 2005 football

season. Applicants first sold about two dozen t-shirts bearing their trademark in

summer 2006, prior to the game against “Ole Miss.” Applicants sold some products

http://alabama.teamfanshop.com/Default.aspx?ctl=Products.Browse&categoryID=7a008b7
and is dated 3/24/2009.
28 Gaston Testimony Dep. p. 23 (Docket # 37); Drucker 5/20/10 Dep. p. 17 (Docket # 41).

29 Blackburn 3/31/09 Dep. pp. 58-59 (Docket # 29); Drucker 5/20/10 Dep. p. 20 (Docket # 41).

30Blackburn 3/31/09 Dep. pp. 16-17, 26 (Docket # 29); Pitts Jr. 3/31/09 Dep. pp. 13-14
(Docket # 29).
31 Blackburn 3/31/09 Dep. pp. 8-9, 14-15 (Docket # 29); Pitts Jr. 3/31/09 Dep. pp. 7, 11-12

(Docket # 29).

15
Opposition No. 91187103

out of applicant Blackburn’s custom embroidery shop, and also on eBay, and sold

approximately 50 to 100 products with the HOUNDSTOOTH MAFIA and Design

trademark out of the back of their vehicle parked in a non-University parking lot

before football games.32 Although applicants’ products were offered for sale on both

eBay and their website, it was not possible to purchase items from the website.33

There is no evidence in the record other than applicants’ testimony and actual

products that supports their sales of products bearing the mark.

According to applicants, the term “Houndstooth Mafia” is a name that refers

to a group of guys who “hang out” together, sometimes attending college football

games, including Alabama games.34 The name “Houndstooth Mafia” is a name that

could also refer to fans of the University.35 Applicants have only used their

“Houndstooth Mafia and Design” mark on t-shirts and caps, including crimson

colored t-shirts and caps.36 Prior to filing their trademark application, applicants

were aware that the University’s color scheme is crimson and white.37 Applicants

never tried to obtain a license from the University for their “Houndstooth Mafia and

32 Blackburn 3/31/09 Dep. pp. 44-46, 48-49 (Docket # 29) and Pitts Jr. 3/31/09 Dep. pp. 57-58

(Docket # 29).
33 Blackburn 3/31/09 Dep. pp. 54, 56, 65, 73-75; Pitts Jr. 3/31/09 Dep. pp. 44, 47-48, 56-58

(Docket # 29).
34 Blackburn 3/31/09 Dep. pp. 37-38 (Docket # 29).

35 Blackburn 3/31/09 Dep. p. 39 (Docket # 29).

36 Blackburn 3/31/09 Dep. pp. 52-53 Exhibits 9-11 OPPS’ NOR 148-149, 151, 154, 156-158

(Docket # 29).
37 Pitts Jr. 3/31/09 Dep. pp. 72-73 (Docket # 29).

16
Opposition No. 91187103

Design” mark and are aware that a license is needed in order to put someone else’s

trademark on a t-shirt. 38

One of the reasons applicants selected the name “Houndstooth Mafia” is

because for the University’s fans, the houndstooth pattern is associated with Coach

Bryant’s houndstooth fedora.39 Applicants believe fans at University football games

wear houndstooth apparel to support the University because Coach Bryant wore a

houndstooth fedora.40 Applicants’ products are intended to be worn by fans of the

University and anyone else.41 Applicants selected a houndstooth pattern as the

background for their mark to coincide with the words in the mark, i.e.,

“Houndstooth Mafia” and because houndstooth was a fashion trend.42

In their application, applicants admitted in response to an office action that

their HOUNDSTOOTH MAFIA and Design mark “makes reference to the

houndstooth hat that Coach Bear Bryant wore at Alabama football games.”43

Applicants subsequently confirmed that their mark refers to the houndstooth

patterned hat that Coach Bryant wore at many University football games.44

Applicants knew that houndstooth patterns were not limited to uses related

to the University inasmuch as they had seen houndstooth wingback chairs at

38 Blackburn 3/31/09 Dep. p. 40 (Docket # 29).

39 Blackburn 3/31/09 Dep. pp. 33-34 (Docket # 29).

40 Blackburn 3/31/09 Dep. p. 32 (Docket # 29).

41 Pitts Jr. 3/31/09 Dep. pp. 75-76 (Docket # 29).

42 Blackburn 3/31/09 Dep. pp. 33-37 (Docket # 29).

43 Pitts Jr. 3/31/09 Dep., Exhibit 16 OPPs’ NOR 0252 (Docket # 29).

44 Pitts Jr. 3/31/09 Dep. pp. 78-79 (Docket # 29).

17
Opposition No. 91187103

furniture stores, dishes with houndstooth pattern around their edges and a Liz

Claiborne brand sweater owned by applicant Pitts’ wife—none of which were uses of

houndstooth patterns in connection with the University.45

Applicants received a cease and desist letter dated August 19, 2008, from The

Collegiate Licensing Company, the University’s licensing agent, requesting that

they withdraw their trademark application for the HOUNDSTOOTH MAFIA and

Design mark. Applicants did not respond to that letter or withdraw their

application. 46

D. Standing

Standing is a threshold issue that must be proved in every inter partes case.

Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 670 F.2d 1024, 1028, 213 USPQ 185,

189 (CCPA 1982). In order to meet the standing requirement, a plaintiff need only

show that it has a real interest, i.e., a personal stake, in the outcome of the

proceeding. See Ritchie v. Simpson, 170 F.3d 1092, 1095, 50 USPQ2d 1023, 1026

(Fed. Cir. 1999); Jewelers Vigilance Committee, Inc. v. Ullenberg Corp., 823 F.2d

490, 492-493, 2 USPQ2d 2021, 2023-24 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

The University has used a houndstooth pattern on apparel and athletic

uniforms. It also owns the unregistered mark PAUL W. BRYANT MUSEUM and

Design as well as three Alabama State trademark registrations for the mark PAUL

W. BRYANT MUSEUM CIRCLE OF CHAMPIONS and Design for goods in Classes

45 Blackburn 3/31/09 Dep. pp. 36-37; Pitts Jr. 3/31/09 Dep. p. 82 (Docket # 29).

46 Drucker 5/20/10 Dep. p. 13, Exhibit 73 OPPS’ NORT 1395 (Docket # 41); Pitts 3/31/09

Dep. p. 29, Exhibit 15 OPPS’ NORT 0251 (Docket # 29).

18
Opposition No. 91187103

16 and 25, and services in Class 41, all of which display an image of Coach Bryant

wearing a patterned fedora hat.

The evidence also shows Coach Bryant’s association with patterned fedoras,

including houndstooth fedoras, and that Bryant Jr. is the son of Coach Bryant. In

view of this association, Bryant, Jr.’s familial connection to Coach Bryant and

Bryant, Jr.’s arrangement with the University in connection with the use of the

Houndstooth Pattern, Bryant, Jr. has standing.47 See In re Wielinski, 49 USPQ2d

1754, 1758 (TTAB 1998) (person’s right to the use of a designation which points

uniquely to his/her persona may be protected under § 2(a) after death if heirs or

other successors entitled to assert that right exist [citations omitted]). The purpose

47 Bryant, Jr., as the son of Coach Bryant, asserts ownership rights to Coach Bryant’s
name, likeness and image and that he is involved in licensing those rights. Bryant, Jr. also
asserts rights in the Houndstooth Pattern in conjunction with the University. (Bryant, Jr.
Testimony Dep. pp. 16-18 (Docket # 35). Opposers assert that they use the alleged
Houndstooth Pattern mark with permission of “the Bryant Estate” (Opposers’ Trial Brief p.
10), however, it is curious that the estate is not a party to this proceeding. Bryant, Jr.
testified that he manages Coach Bryant’s estate, yet there is no testimony or evidence
explaining how Bryant, Jr. inherited or acquired an interest in Coach Bryant’s estate or
otherwise owns any rights associated with Coach Bryant’s name, likeness and image.
Bryant Jr. equivocally testified as to his ownership rights (Bryant, Jr. Testimony Dep. pp.
16-17 (Docket # 35)):
Q. . . . Do you know who retains the rights in Coach Bryant’s name, likeness and
image since he passed away?
A. . . . . I think I do.
....
Q. . . . And do you know who owns the houndstooth pattern trademark?
A . . . . I think I do in conjunction with the University of Alabama given the –
Q . . . .Do you own that through Coach Bryant’s estate?
A. . . . Yes.
The evidence supporting Bryant, Jr.’s participation in this proceeding while the estate of
Coach Bryant sits on the sidelines is very thin. However, applicants have not challenged
this issue, so we deem opposers’ proof of Bryant Jr.’s standing to be sufficient.

19
Opposition No. 91187103

of the standing requirement is to prevent mere intermeddlers from initiating

proceedings. But the Federal Circuit has enunciated a liberal threshold for

determining standing, namely, whether a plaintiff's belief in damage has a

reasonable basis in fact and reflects a real interest in the case. Ritchie, 50 USPQ2d

at 1025-28 and Jewelers Vigilance Committee, 2 USPQ2d at 2023.

The foregoing is sufficient to show that opposers have a real commercial

interest in this proceeding and, therefore, have standing. See Cunningham v. Laser

Golf Corp., 222 F.3d 943, 945, 55 USPQ2d 1842, 1844 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

E. Likelihood of Confusion

Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act precludes registration when a mark is likely

to cause confusion with a mark or trade name previously used or registered by

another. 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). Hence, in order to prevail on their § 2(d) claim,

opposers must establish they have priority in a proprietary term and that

registration of applicants’ mark will create a likelihood of confusion. Herbko

International Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1162, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1378

(Fed. Cir. 2002); King Candy Co. v. Eunice King’s Kitchen, Inc., 496 F.2d 1400,

1402, 182 USPQ 108, 110 (CCPA 1974).

1. Opposers’ Alleged Marks

Opposers’ opposition is predicated on three alleged marks they characterize

as follows:

(1) a Houndstooth Pattern used in connection with the University’s licensed

apparel and as an alleged source indicator for Coach Bryant, and the University’s

educational and athletic services;

20
Opposition No. 91187103

(2) the University’s Crimson and White color scheme as used in connection

with the University’s goods and services; and

(3) the University’s common law rights in the PAUL W. BRYANT MUSEUM

and Design logo and Alabama state trademark registrations for the mark the PAUL

W. BRYANT MUSEUM CIRCLE OF CHAMPIONS and Design.

2. Priority

Opposers must prove they used their alleged marks as a trademark or service

mark, or in a manner analogous to a mark (i.e., that they have proprietary rights in

the alleged marks), before either the actual or constructive first use date by

applicants (whichever is earlier).48 Automedx Inc. v. Artivent Corp., 95 USPQ2d

1976, 1978 (TTAB 2010) citing Herbko, 308 F.3d at 1162, 64 USPQ2d at 1378; Otto

Roth, 640 F.2d at 1320, 209 USPQ at 43; Miller Brewing Co. v. Anheuser-Busch Inc.,

27 USPQ2d 1711, 1714 (TTAB 1993).

Before determining whether opposers have established priority, we must first

tackle the issue whether opposers own any proprietary rights. If opposers have not

established proprietary rights in their alleged marks, then the issues of priority and

likelihood of confusion are moot and need not be considered.

48Although opposers did not specifically plead priority, the issue was tried by implied
consent as both parties addressed this issue in their trial briefs.

21
Opposition No. 91187103

3. Opposers’ Use of Alleged Marks

(a) Houndstooth Pattern

Houndstooth, as shown in the image below, is defined as “a pattern of broken

or jagged checks, used on a variety of fabrics:”49

Because houndstooth is a known textile pattern, the crucial question is

whether there is a point at which the houndstooth pattern transitions from being an

ornamental fabric design to a proprietary design that identifies and distinguishes

opposers’ products and services. Opposers’ answer to this question is to limit their

asserted rights in the alleged Houndstooth Pattern mark to circumstances when: (1)

the Houndstooth Pattern is used on products sold in the state of Alabama or (2)

houndstooth is used in connection with other trademarks or indicia of opposers.50

Opposers contend the University has been using the Houndstooth Pattern as

a trademark with permission from Bryant, Jr. in connection with “educational and

athletic services” for about half a century,51 and that the Houndstooth Pattern has

49 The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition. Unabridged.
1987.
50 Opposers’ Trial Brief p. 9, n. 3.

51 Inasmuch as Coach Bryant’s death occurred thirty years ago in January, 1983, the
University’s contentions that it has used the alleged Houndstooth Pattern mark with the
permission of Bryant’s estate for “more than fifty years” and “almost half a century” are not
accurate. We assume that the University’s position is that it has used the alleged
Houndstooth Pattern mark with the permission of both Coach Bryant and his estate for
about the past fifty years but there is no evidence that supports this position.

22
Opposition No. 91187103

been used on a variety of goods.52 For opposers to prevail on their section 2(d)

claim, we must find that during his life, Coach Bryant owned protectable common

law trademark rights in the Houndstooth Pattern, that these rights were acquired

by his estate, and that Coach Bryant, during his lifetime, or later Bryant’s estate,

licensed their trademark rights in the Houndstooth Pattern to the University.

When reviewing these requirements in connection with the evidence, it is clear

opposers have fumbled.

Opposers provided extensive evidence that Coach Bryant wore a patterned

fedora, often featuring a houndstooth pattern, since as early as 1965. There is no

evidence that the hats worn by Coach Bryant were one-of-a-kind, custom-designed,

or anything other than commercially-available men’s fedora hats. The mere fact

that Coach Bryant was recognized for wearing patterned fedoras at the University’s

football games does not endow either Coach Bryant (including his estate) or the

University with trademark rights in the Houndstooth Pattern. There is no evidence

that Coach Bryant ever used the Houndstooth Pattern as a trademark in connection

with products or services. Despite Bryant, Jr.’s vague testimony that he has

“allowed” the University to use the Houndstooth Pattern, opposers have not shown

that Bryant’s estate owned any trademark rights in the Houndstooth Pattern that

the University could have been “allowed” to use. To the contrary, the evidence

shows that any commercial uses of the asserted Houndstooth Pattern arose well

after Coach Bryant’s death in January 1983.

52 Opposers’ Trial Brief pp. 10-11; Gaston Testimony Dep. pp. 19-20 (Docket # 37); Bryant,

Jr. Testimony Dep. pp. 17-18 (Docket # 37).

23
Opposition No. 91187103

In view of the foregoing, the University did not acquire trademark rights in

the Houndstooth Pattern from Coach Bryant or his estate, so we look downfield to

consider whether the University itself has established common law trademark or

service mark rights in the Houndstooth Pattern.

Despite the wide array of evidence showing its use of a Houndstooth Pattern,

the University failed to define or describe the manner in which the Houndstooth

Pattern is being used as a trademark to identify its goods and services. For

example, to support its service mark use of the Houndstooth Pattern, the University

points to various promotional publications, including yearbooks, sports programs

and brochures, featuring photos of Coach Bryant wearing a houndstooth-patterned

fedora, and more recent photos of tennis team members wearing baseball caps made

of houndstooth fabric.53 All of the images merely show nominal ornamental use of a

houndstooth fabric pattern on hats worn by persons affiliated with opposers; they

do not show use of the Houndstooth Pattern in a distinctive manner that creates an

association of the pattern with the services provided by the University.

Over the past thirty years, the University sporadically used the Houndstooth

Pattern as a decorative feature on products. As previously noted, it first displayed

the Houndstooth Pattern during the football season following Coach Bryant’s death

in January 1983, on stickers applied to football players’ helmets. Twenty-three

years later in 2006, the University’s football players wore commemorative jerseys

53 Opposers’ Trial Brief p. 11; Gaston Testimony Dep. p. 20, Exhibits 15 (OPP NORT 485-

486), 18-20 (OPP NORT 492-495) (Docket # 37), and 22-23 (OPP NORT 854-861) (Docket
# 38).

24
Opposition No. 91187103

where the Houndstooth Pattern trimmed the neck opening of the jersey, and an

unidentified number of similar jerseys were subsequently sold to the public.54 Some

members of its football team wore gloves made of a Houndstooth Pattern fabric and

a bearing a large crimson “Stylized A” during the 2009 Sugar Bowl football game.55

By the University’s own admission, its uses of the Houndstooth Pattern were to

commemorate Coach Bryant.56 The University has not shown how such

commemorative uses serve as sponsorship or source identifiers for the University.

At some point in time, female members of the University’s tennis team wore caps

bearing the Houndstooth Pattern with the University’s “Stylized A” trademark on

the front of the cap.57 Sometime in 2006 or later, the University began selling

apparel that incorporated a houndstooth design.58 This apparel also bears

identifying indicia of the University such as its “Stylized A” logo on the front of the

apparel.59

Because the University does not own any federal trademark registrations for

the Houndstooth Pattern, it must prove that the pattern is inherently distinctive, or

Blackburn 3/31/09 Dep. p. 43 (Docket #29); Gaston Testimony Dep. p. 20, Exhibit 16
54

NORT 487-489 (Docket # 37); Pitts Jr. 3/31/09 Dep. p. 80 (Docket #29).
55 Gaston Testimony Dep. p. 20 (Docket # 37). Although not in evidence and without
objection by applicants, the image of the gloves shown in Opposers’ Trial Brief at p. 11,
clearly shows the University’s “Stylized A” trademark on the gloves.
56 Gaston Testimony Dep. p. 20, Exhibit 17 OPP NORT 490-491 (Docket # 37); Opposers’

Trial Brief pp. 10-11.
57 Opposers’ Trial Brief p. 11; Gaston Testimony Dep. p. 23 (Docket # 37), Exhibit 23 OPP

NORT 856-861 (Docket # 38).
58 There is scant testimony as to when the University began selling such products and
corroborative evidence such as sales figures for these products is lacking.
59 Drucker 3/28/11 Dep. pp. 9-56, Exhibits 81-140 OPPS’ NORT 1873-2051 (Docket # 60).

25
Opposition No. 91187103

has acquired distinctiveness. Hoover Co. v. Royal Appliance Mfg. Co., 238 F.3d

1357, 1359, 57 USPQ2d 1720, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Towers v. Advent Software,

Inc., 913 F.2d 942, 16 USPQ2d 1039, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1990) citing Otto Roth, 640

F. 2d at 1320, 209 USPQ at 43; Threshold.TV, Inc. v. Metronome Enterprises Inc.,

96 USPQ2d 1031, 1036-37 (TTAB 2010).

All of the examples of asserted trademark use of the Houndstooth Pattern,

except for the commemorative stickers, show it as a background on which one or

more of the University’s other trademarks is displayed. Where the background

display of a mark is sought to be registered, such design may be registered without

any showing of acquired distinctiveness only if it is by its very nature distinctive or

unique enough to create a commercial impression as an indication of origin separate

and apart from the remainder of the mark; conversely, if the design is not

inherently distinctive, that is, if it is mere background material which does not

inherently create a separate commercial impression as a trademark, it may be

registered only upon proof of acquired distinctiveness. See In re Esso Standard Oil

Co., 305 F.2d 495, 134 USPQ 402 404-05 (CCPA, 1962); In re E. J. Brach & Sons,

256 F.2d 325, 327, 118 USPQ 308, 309-10 (CCPA, 1958); In re Swift & Co., 223 F.2d

950, 953-54, 106 USPQ 286, 288 (CCPA 1955); In re Raytheon Co., 202 USPQ 317,

318 (TTAB 1979). As explained in Permatex Co., Inc. v. California Tube Products,

Inc., 175 USPQ 764, 766 (TTAB 1972):

“It is settled that common basic shapes such as circles,
ovals, triangles, diamonds, stars, and other geometric
designs, when used as vehicles for the display of word or
letter marks, are not regarded as indicia of origin for the

26
Opposition No. 91187103

goods to which they are applied in the absence of a
showing of secondary meaning in the design alone
[citations omitted]. The rationale behind these cases is
that designs of this character have been so commonly
employed as background devices for word marks that
composite marks of this type create but a single
commercial impression with the result that purchasers
would normally utilize the word portions of the marks to
identify and distinguish the goods sold thereunder; and
that differences between word portions of different marks
utilizing the same common background design would
generally be sufficient to avoid trade confusion.

There are [sic], however, a line of cases that hold for the
proposition that where the background design of a
composite mark is not commonplace, but is unique or
unusual in a particular field of endeavor, said design can
be considered to be ‘inherently distinctive’ and no proof of
secondary meaning need be introduced to show that it
functions as a trademark, separate and apart from the
word feature, to identify a party's goods in commerce.
[citations omitted] In other words, where the background
design of a unitary mark is ‘inherently distinctive,’ the
mark is deemed to consist of two separate features, either
one of which can serve to identify the goods of the owner
of the mark.” (emphasis added).

While we do not rule out the possibility that a houndstooth pattern can

constitute an inherently distinctive trademark based on the manner in which it is

used, the evidence shows the alleged Houndstooth Pattern mark is used in an

ornamental fashion and would be perceived as a non-distinctive background design,

rather than as an indicator of source or sponsorship. Generally, where the design

sought to be protected is common or ornamental, the party alleging trademark

rights in the design has an “unusually heavy burden” to show acquired

distinctiveness, i.e., to show that in fact the purchasing public recognizes the design

as a trademark which identifies the source of the goods. See, e.g., Yamaha Int’l

27
Opposition No. 91187103

Corp. v. Hoshino Gakki Co. Ltd., 840 F.2d 1572, 6 USPQ2d 1001, 1006 (Fed. Cir.

1988) (citing with approval the Board’s observation that a party seeking to establish

that a common ornamental design has acquired distinctiveness bears “an unusually

heavy burden”); In re Chevron Intellectual Property Group LLC, 96 USPQ2d 2026,

2030 (TTAB 2010). While ornamentation is not incompatible with trademark

function, “unless the design is of such nature that its distinctiveness is obvious,

convincing evidence must be forthcoming to prove that in fact the purchasing public

does recognize the design as a trademark which identifies the source of the goods.”

In re Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 774 F.2d 1116, 1124, 227 USPQ 417, 422

(Fed. Cir. 1985).

Our primary reviewing court and the Board look to Seabrook Foods, Inc. v.

Bar-Well Foods Ltd., 568 F.2d 1342, 196 USPQ 289 (CCPA 1977), to determine

whether a design (exclusive of product design, which can never be inherently

distinctive) used in connection with goods or services, is inherently distinctive.60

See In re Chippendales USA Inc., 622 F.3d 1346, 1357-58, 96 USPQ2d 1681, 1689

(Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Procter & Gamble Co., 105 USPQ2d 1119, 1122 (TTAB 2012);

In re Right-On Co. Ltd., 87 USPQ2d 1152, 1155 (TTAB 2008).

Seabrook articulates the following factors for determining whether a design is

inherently distinctive: (1) whether the design is a common basic shape or design;

(2) whether the design is unique or unusual in the field in which it is used;

(3) whether the design is a mere refinement of a commonly-adopted and well-known

60Product design can never be inherently distinctive. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara
Brothers, Inc., 529 U.S. 205, 54 USPQ2d 1065 (2000).

28
Opposition No. 91187103

form of ornamentation for the particular class of goods or services viewed by the

public as a dress or ornamentation for the goods and services; or (4) whether the

design is capable of creating a commercial impression distinct from any

accompanying matter, if presented together with text or other matter. Id.

Looking to the first three factors, the University uses the traditional

houndstooth pattern, a known fabric pattern design, as a background fabric for its

apparel together with University trademarks which are displayed on the

background, and nominally utilizes the pattern in promotional materials that

feature images of Coach Bryant wearing houndstooth fedoras. Opposers’ use of the

alleged Houndstooth Pattern mark on the surface of apparel products is not “unique

or unusual.” To the contrary, houndstooth is “a pattern of broken or jagged checks,

often used on fabrics,” and opposers’ use of the Houndstooth Pattern for apparel is

quite the “usual” application. With respect to the fourth factor, it is conceivable

that a houndstooth pattern could create a commercial impression separate and

distinct from any accompanying matter. In the context of opposers’ ordinary use of

the Houndstooth Pattern however, the pattern is highly unlikely to have created a

distinct commercial impression. See Right-On, 87 USPQ2d at 1155 (pocket-

stitching design is commonly adopted form of ornamentation and not inherently

distinctive); In re Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc., 105 USPQ2d 1684 (TTAB 2013)

(simple wave design appearing as piping on apparel likely to be perceived as mere

ornamentation). Because the Seabrook factors demonstrate opposers’ use of the

Houndstooth Pattern is not inherently distinctive, it can only be recognized as a

29
Opposition No. 91187103

trademark upon proof of acquired distinctiveness. Cf. Standard Terry Mills, Inc. v.

Shen Mfg. Co., 803 F.2d 778, 781, 231 USPQ 555, 558 (3d Cir. 1986) (“windowpane

check” pattern on a kitchen towel is not a protectable trade dress because it is

“functional” as being a “favorite pattern for kitchen textiles” and “compatible with

contemporary kitchen decor.”); In re David Crystal, Inc., 296 F.2d 771, 132 USPQ 1

(CCPA 1961) (colored bands around top of men's socks held nondistinctive and proof

of secondary meaning insufficient); In re Hehr Mfg. Co., 279 F.2d 526, 126 USPQ

381 (CCPA 1960) (nondistinctive square red label registered upon proof of acquired

distinctiveness); In re Schenectady Varnish Co., 280 F.2d 169, 126 USPQ 395

(CCPA 1960) (design consisting of cloud and lightning flash registrable on showing

of secondary meaning).

(1) Has the University Acquired Distinctiveness in the Houndstooth
Pattern?

Whether the Houndstooth Pattern is viewed as an ornamental or a non-

distinctive design, the University bears the burden of proving acquired

distinctiveness, i.e., “secondary meaning,” by a preponderance of the evidence. Tone

Brothers Inc. v. Sysco Corp., 28 F.3d 1192, 31 USPQ2d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1994)

citing Yamaha Int’l Corp., 840 F.2d 1572, 6 USPQ2d at 1006, and must establish

acquired distinctiveness in the Houndstooth Pattern before the date on which

applicants can establish their rights. Threshold.TV, 96 USPQ2d at 1036 and

Herbko, 308 F.3d 1162, 64 USPQ2d at 1378.

Acquired distinctiveness can be shown by direct evidence such as actual

testimony, declarations or surveys of consumers as to their state of mind; and/or

30
Opposition No. 91187103

circumstantial evidence from which consumer association might be inferred, such as

length and exclusivity of use, extensive sales and advertising expenditures,

unsolicited media coverage, consumer studies and any similar evidence showing

wide exposure of the mark to consumers. There is no fixed rule for the amount of

proof necessary to demonstrate acquired distinctiveness. In re Steelbuilding.com,

415 F.3d 1293, 1300, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Threshold.TV, 96

USPQ2d at 1038; In re Brouwerij Bosteels, 96 USPQ2d 1414, 1424 (TTAB 2010).

The amount and character of evidence required to establish acquired distinctiveness

depends on the facts of the case and particularly on the nature of the mark sought

to be registered or protected. See Roux Laboratories, Inc. v. Clairol Inc., 427 F.2d

823, 829, 166 USPQ 34, 39 (CCPA 1970).

Because the University’s merchandise utilizes the Houndstooth Pattern in an

ornamental and non-distinctive fashion together with other trademarks and

identifying indicia of the University, opposers must show that the alleged

Houndstooth Pattern mark has acquired distinctiveness independent and separate

from any other indicia on the products. There is no evidence showing that the

Houndstooth Pattern creates a commercial impression distinct from any

accompanying indicia of the University or that the University has promoted it as

such. Opposers have punted away their claim of broad rights in any use of a

houndstooth pattern by conceding that they only claim rights in the Houndstooth

31
Opposition No. 91187103

Pattern “when the houndstooth pattern is used on products sold in Alabama or used

in connection with trademarks or other indicia of the University or Coach Bryant.”61

In view of the lack of evidence and opposers’ own recognition of the

significant role of its identifying indicia, we conclude that any association of the

Houndstooth Pattern background design with the University is predicated upon the

impression conveyed by the University’s indicia appearing thereon rather than by

any distinctive characteristic or use of the Houndstooth Pattern per se. See

Seabrook, 568 F.2d at 1345, 196 USPQ at 292; (design is never displayed apart from

the word mark); In re Benetton Group S.p.A., 48 USPQ2d 1214, 1217 (TTAB 1998)

(no secondary meaning where green rectangle used as background design for word

mark); In re Mogen David Wine Corp., 372 F.2d 539, 542, 152 USPQ 593, 595

(CCPA 1967) (where advertising depicting the bottle design sought to be registered

always featured the word mark, such evidence failed to prove secondary meaning in

the design itself); In re McIlhenny Co., 278 F.2d 953, 956-57, 126 USPQ 138, 140-41

(CCPA 1960) (bottle design has not acquired distinctiveness where evidence showed

prominent labeling with applicant’s registered mark and trade name).

There is no evidence the University promoted or treated the Houndstooth

Pattern as a trademark. Its early uses of the Houndstooth Pattern on helmet

stickers and football jerseys were commemorative one-time uses. The University

has never identified the Houndstooth Pattern as a trademark on product labeling or

61 Opposers’ Trial Brief p. 9, n. 3.

32
Opposition No. 91187103

promoted it in advertising as such.62 Notably, neither the University’s Graphic

Standards 2010-2012 manual which sets forth guidelines for “reproducing the

marks of the University,” nor its “Indicia Artwork” guide identify the alleged

Houndstooth Pattern mark as a trademark or other identifier of the University.63

Opposers submitted a substantial amount of evidence of media coverage

commenting on Coach Bryant’s houndstooth fedora, (which was sometimes referred

to as a “checked” or “patterned” fedora). Although such evidence supports the

association of a houndstooth fedora with the Coach, it does not prove any trademark

association of the Houndstooth Pattern with the University. For example, if the

Coach left the employ of the University, it is clear that the association with a

houndstooth fedora would follow the Coach as the person who wore the hat. See

Herman Miller Inc. v. Palazzetti Imports and Exports, Inc., 270 F.3d 298, 315, 60

USPQ2d 1633, 1646 n.7 (6th Cir. 2001) (in proving acquired distinctiveness,

“Herman Miller must demonstrate that when the buying public recognizes the

lounge chair and ottoman as ‘an Eames,’ it recognizes that ‘an Eames,’ comes from

62 To show that the alleged Houndstooth Pattern mark has been used in advertising,
opposers point to billboards bearing the Paul W. Bryant Museum and Design mark.
Opposers’ Trial Brief p. 14. Use of the Paul W. Bryant Museum and Design mark, where
the mark contains the words “Paul W. Bryant Museum” together with an image of Coach
Bryant wearing a patterned fedora, does not promote the trademark significance of the
Houndstooth Pattern. Billboards advertising the Bryant Museum incorporating an image
of Coach Bryant wearing a patterned hat or promotional materials featuring Coach Bryant
and later, members of the University’s tennis team in houndstooth caps, is hardly the type
of advertising that would cause consumers to make a sponsorship or source-identifying
association between the Houndstooth Pattern and the University’s goods and services.
63 See Gaston Testimony Dep. pp. 25-26, Exhibits 27 (OPPS’ NORT 868-911) and 28 (OPPS’

NORT 912-914) (Docket # 38) (“The University of Alabama is the owner of all rights, title
and interest in and to the following Indicia, which includes trademarks, service marks,
trade names, designs, logos, seals and symbols.”).

33
Opposition No. 91187103

one source – one anonymous manufacturer. The evidence that Herman Miller

presents simply associating the lounge chair and ottoman with the Eameses, and

not Herman Miller, fails to indicate that in the mind of the consuming public the

furniture is connected with a single, although anonymous, source that

manufactures it.”).

By not providing evidence of “look for” advertising or other promotional

efforts to create consumer association between the Houndstooth Pattern and the

University as the source or sponsor of its goods or services, the University loses

ground. The Board and other courts have long noted the importance of such

advertising in establishing the existence of acquired distinctiveness. See Mag

Instrument Inc. v. Brinkmann Corp., 96 USPQ2d 1701, 1723-24 (TTAB 2010)

(perhaps most damaging to showing of acquired distinctiveness is lack of any “look

for” advertising), aff’d mem., 2011 WL 5400095 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 9, 2011); Seabrook,

568 F.2d at 1345, 196 USPQ at 291 (advertising emphasizing design portion of the

mark to potential customers is persuasive evidence of acquired distinctiveness);

Duraco Prods. Inc. v. Joy Plastic Enter., Ltd., 40 F.3d 1431, 1452, 32 USPQ2d 1724,

1741 (3d Cir. 1994) (advertising expenditures “measured primarily with regard to

those advertisements which highlight the supposedly distinctive, identifying

feature” of the product configuration); see also, Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Panduit

Corp., 65 F.3d 654, 662, 36 USPQ2d 1065, 1071-72 (7th Cir. 1995) (“look for”

advertising encourages consumers to connect the claimed trade dress with the

particular producer); First Brands Corp. v. Fred Meyer Inc., 809 F.2d 1378, 1383, 1

34
Opposition No. 91187103

USPQ2d 1779, 1782 (9th Cir. 1987) (“[A]dvertising campaign has not stressed the

color and shape of the antifreeze jug so as to support an inference of secondary

meaning.”). The University did not produce evidence of any advertising, much less

“look for” advertising that highlights the Houndstooth Pattern.

The University submitted evidence of $330 million of sales of licensed

University-related apparel over a five year period from 2004 to 2009, some of which

incorporates the Houndstooth Pattern. However, the University’s sales figures do

not break down the actual dollar amount of sales for merchandise bearing the

Houndstooth Pattern, nor does the University provide a date on which the sale of

such merchandise bearing the Houndstooth Pattern began.64 In view of the lack of

specificity in the University’s sales figures, this evidence is not probative of acquired

distinctiveness.

Even if such itemized sales information were provided, it would have limited

value due to the fact that the houndstooth apparel prominently features the

University’s trademarks, including, but not limited to its “Alabama,” “Crimson

Tide,” and “Stylized A” trademarks. Additionally, substantial sales may simply

indicate the popularity of the products attributable to some other factors such as

the fashionable nature of houndstooth, or the popularity of the University’s

trademarks on the products, rather than to an association between the Houndstooth

Pattern itself and the University and/or its goods. See In re Soccer Sport Supply

Co., 507 F.2d 1400, 184 USPQ 345, 348 (CCPA 1975) (where proffered evidence of

64 Drucker 5/20/10 Dep. p. 16 (Docket # 41), Confidential Exhibit 75 (Docket # 40).

35
Opposition No. 91187103

acquired distinctiveness consists of simultaneous use of marks other than alleged

mark at issue, it may fail to show the alleged mark, rather than the other marks

present, has acquired distinctiveness); In re Bongrain Int’l (American) Corp., 894

F.2d 1316, 1318, 13 USPQ2d 1727, 1729 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (growth in sales may

indicate the popularity of the product, rather than trademark significance, or it may

indicate acceptance of applicant’s other mark on the package); In re Semel, 189

USPQ 285, 287 (TTAB 1975) (in evaluating advertising figures, it is necessary to

also consider not only the extent of advertising but also whether the advertising has

been effective in creating an association between the mark sought to be registered

and the goods and/or services).

Opposers submit only the conclusory testimony of the University’s Senior

Associate Athletic Director and Chief Financial Officer of Athletic Department, and

the University’s licensing agent, as evidence that the University licenses the

Houndstooth Pattern.65 Oddly, opposers did not provide copies of any license

agreements reflecting the licensing terms. In the absence of evidence establishing

that the Houndstooth Pattern itself is the subject matter of the licenses, i.e., is

treated as a trademark in the licenses, the mere existence of license agreements for

65 Mr. Gaston merely confirmed that the University sells licensed apparel items bearing the

houndstooth pattern. Gaston Testimony Dep. p. 23 (Docket # 37). Opposers’ licensing
agent, Michael Drucker, testified that in April 2006, the University licensed Nike to
produce and sell apparel bearing the alleged Houndstooth Pattern mark. Drucker 5/20/10
Dep. pp. 17-18, Exhibits 76-77, OPPS’ NOR 1405-1424 (Docket # 41). However, the
testimony did not shed any light on critical information—whether the license recognized
the Houndstooth Pattern as a proprietary trademark. The Exhibits identified by the
witness to support the existence of a license were entitled “Artwork Approval Form” and do
not contain any licensing terms. Because no copy of the license agreement was submitted
to the Board, there is no evidence that the license designated the Houndstooth Pattern as a
trademark rather than just the type of fabric to be used on the products.

36
Opposition No. 91187103

products bearing a Houndstooth Pattern that is used with other indicia of the

University are not probative of acquired distinctiveness.

Although the University has “licensed products displaying the Houndstooth

Pattern since at least as early as 2006,” according to its licensing agent, there is

scant evidence as to when such items were first sold, and no evidence of the amount

of their sales. During the testimony deposition of Michael Drucker, Vice President

and Associate General Counsel for Collegiate Licensing Company, the University’s

licensing agent, Mr. Drucker testified that the University licenses a variety of

apparel items displaying the Houndstooth Pattern including, hats, t-shirts and

sweatshirts.66 Yet, of the more than 1600 University-licensed items shown in the

exhibits to Mr. Drucker’s May 20, 2010 deposition which was well after applicants’

filing date, including apparel items and various collateral products, only four items,

consisting of women’s t-shirts and a baseball cap, bear the Houndstooth Pattern.67

By the time of Mr. Drucker’s rebuttal testimony on March 28, 2011, 60 items

bearing the Houndstooth Pattern were being offered for sale. See Otto Roth & Co.

v. Universal Foods Corp., 640 F.2d 1317, 209 USPQ 40, 45 (CCPA 1981) (opposer

resting on common law rights in descriptive mark must show secondary meaning

prior to application). Notably, all of the items with the Houndstooth Pattern bear

trademarks or other indicia of the University. Without information regarding the

extent of sales and manner of promotion of such products, their mere availability for

66 Drucker 5/20/10 Dep. p. 16-17 (Docket # 41).

67See Exhibits 78-80 to Drucker 5/20/10 Dep. (OPPS’ NORT 1425-1568) (Docket # 41);
pages OPPS’ NORT 1425, 1427-1428 and 1483 display t-shirts and a baseball cap with the
houndstooth pattern.

37
Opposition No. 91187103

purchase does not provide probative evidence of the acquired distinctiveness of the

Houndstooth Pattern. See In re Soccer Sport Supply, 507 F.2d 1400, 184 USPQ at

348.

Nor have opposers introduced any survey evidence of acquired

distinctiveness. While survey evidence is not required, considering the ornamental

nature of the Houndstooth Pattern, the lack of a survey in the absence of other

probative evidence of acquired distinctiveness leaves little basis for us to recognize

opposers’ alleged ownership of trademark rights in the Houndstooth Pattern.68

In some cases, such as those involving highly descriptive marks, the nature of

the term being asserted as a trademark requires an enhanced evidentiary showing

to prove acquired distinctiveness. See, e.g., Yamaha Int’l Corp., 840 F.2d 1572, 6

USPQ2d at 1006; Chevron Intellectual Property Group, 96 USPQ2d at 2030; Target

Brands Inc. v. Hughes, 85 USPQ2d 1676, 1681-82 (TTAB 2007). Given the similar

non-distinctive nature of the Houndstooth Pattern, because houndstooth is a

common pattern when used on apparel items, additional evidence, especially in the

form of direct consumer evidence, would have been helpful to show that the

Houndstooth Pattern has become distinctive and that consumers view the

Houndstooth Pattern as a distinctive source or sponsorship indicator for opposers’

goods and services.

The testimony submitted by the parties is in agreement to the extent the

parties agree that the public associates houndstooth with Coach Bryant’s hat and

68 Yamaha, 840 F.2d at 1583, 6 USPQ2d at 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (the “absence of a survey

need not preclude a finding of acquired distinctiveness”).

38
Opposition No. 91187103

fans wear houndstooth apparel to the University’s football games to show support

for the University because they know that is “what Coach Bryant wore.”69

Regardless of their reasons for wearing houndstooth apparel however, there is no

evidence the houndstooth of the fans’ apparel functions as a source or sponsorship

indicator for the University’s goods and services, or that it was authorized by the

University. The University’s non-exclusive use of the Houndstooth Pattern is

apparent from the availability and suitability of houndstooth fabric patterns for

consumer apparel that is not sponsored by the University. Therefore, in the

absence of a showing that the Houndstooth Pattern is distinctive of the University

even in the state of Alabama, the fact that fans wear houndstooth apparel of

unknown origin cuts against the University’s exclusive use of the alleged

Houndstooth Pattern mark. Thus, the record does not persuade us that the public

recognizes the alleged Houndstooth Pattern mark as a trademark identifying goods

and services emanating from opposers.

Further, the evidence does not show that opposers have enjoyed substantially

exclusive use of the Houndstooth Pattern either in the state of Alabama, or in

connection with indicia of the University. Houndstooth is a known fabric pattern

available to the general public and as shown by applicants’ evidence, has been used

by third-parties for items marketed to the University’s fans. The website

ehoundstooth.com contains images of products covered with houndstooth patterns

offered for sale on the same page as products bearing the University’s “Stylized A”

69 Bryant, Jr. Testimony Dep. p. 17 (Docket # 35); Gaston Testimony Dep. pp. 24-25 (Docket

# 37); Blackburn 3/31/09 Dep. p. 27 (Docket # 29).

39
Opposition No. 91187103

logo and the word “Champions”70; houndstoothhut.com offers houndstooth products

as well as items targeted to Alabama fans including books about Bear Bryant and

Alabama SEC Champion t-shirts71; the crimsonhoundstooth.com site offers

Alabama t-shirts, and t-shirts bearing an image of a patterned fedora, and identifies

its physical address at Crimson Houndstooth, in Anniston, Alabama.72 Not only

does this Internet evidence show that products bearing a houndstooth pattern

together with indicia of the University are offered for sale and marketed by third

parties in the same channels of trade, i.e., the Internet, to the same types of

customers, i.e., fans of the University, it shows that these products are being

marketed in connection with domain names containing the word “houndstooth.”

Additionally, The Houndstooth Sports Bar, located in the University’s hometown of

Tuscaloosa, uses a cartoon-like logo of a dog sitting in a dog house wearing a

houndstooth patterned fedora, and sells t-shirts bearing the logo to Alabama fans.

Its houndstoothsportsbar.com website also features the houndstooth fedora-wearing

dog logo and offers apparel items bearing the logo for sale.73

Collectively, these third-party uses of the houndstooth pattern and domain

names show the University’s use of a Houndstooth Pattern for such products has

not been exclusive in the state of Alabama, in Tuscaloosa, or in connection with

70 See APP NOR-003 (Docket # 34).

71 See APP NOR 005-012 (Docket # 34).

72 See APP NOR 013-014 (Docket # 34).

73 See APP NOR 021-025 (Docket # 34).

40
Opposition No. 91187103

indicia of the University, and undermine a claim of acquired distinctiveness.74 In re

Owens-Corning, 227 USPQ at 424 n. 11, citing Levi Strauss & Co. v. Genesco, Inc.,

742 F.2d 1401, 1404-05, 222 USPQ 939, 942 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (distinctiveness is

acquired by “substantially exclusive and continuous use” of the mark in commerce);

Target Brands, 85 USPQ2d at 1682-83. We acknowledge that acquired

distinctiveness tolerates a certain level of use by others, but such use is permitted

only so long as it does not rise to a level that invalidates the party’s claim of

“substantially exclusive and continuous” use. The third-party contemporaneous use

of a houndstooth pattern for apparel and other items closely related to the

University’s apparel and collateral items calls opposers’ substantially exclusive use

into question, and along with the other deficiencies noted above, defeats any claim

of acquired distinctiveness.75 See, e.g., Levi Strauss & Co. v. Genesco, Inc., 742 F.2d

1401, 222 USPQ 939 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“When the record shows that purchasers are

confronted with more than one (let alone numerous) independent users of a term or

device, . . . distinctiveness on which purchasers may rely is lacking under such

circumstances.”).

In conclusion, opposers’ evidence does not get it into the end zone by proving

it has trademark rights in the alleged Houndstooth Pattern mark. The evidence

74 Despite any limitations in the probative value of the third-party uses due to the absence

of evidence regarding the extent of exposure, distribution or sales, this evidence has not
been rebutted and thus, the excerpts provide some evidence of the lack of distinctiveness of
opposers’ alleged Houndstooth Pattern mark.
75 Pursuant to the Otto Roth rule, the University cannot prevail on its likelihood of
confusion claim unless it shows that the unregistered Houndstooth Pattern is either
inherently distinctive or acquired distinctiveness before applicants’ priority date. Otto
Roth, 640 F.2d at 1320, 209 USPQ at 44-45.

41
Opposition No. 91187103

simply does not prove that either Bryant, Jr. or the University established

proprietary trademark rights in the Houndstooth Pattern or that the Houndstooth

Pattern has been treated as a trademark in license agreements, product labeling,

graphic standards and artwork manuals, advertising or otherwise. The absence of

evidence concerning the volume of sales or advertising for product promotion or

packaging featuring the alleged Houndstooth Pattern mark, or any other evidence

from which consumer association might be inferred, compels the finding that the

University has not met its burden of proving acquired distinctiveness in the

Houndstooth Pattern. The University’s reliance on its other trademarks and indicia

as a predicate for its rights in the Houndstooth Pattern is a recognition that the

Houndstooth Pattern has not acquired distinctiveness as a source or sponsorship

identifier of the University’s goods and services. Given the third-party uses of a

houndstooth pattern and the lack of probative evidence to support consumers’

association of products bearing a Houndstooth Pattern with opposers, opposers have

no proprietary trademark rights in the Houndstooth Pattern, even if we accept their

restriction that it would be recognized as its trademark only in the state of

Alabama.

Opposers also assert proprietary rights in the Houndstooth Pattern when it is

used in connection with other trademarks or indicia of opposers. Other than a

houndstooth pattern, applicants’ mark does not contain any alleged trademarks or

other indicia owned by opposers. To the extent that opposers look to applicants’ use

of a red and white color scheme or other indicia used in combination with

42
Opposition No. 91187103

applicants’ HOUNDSTOOTH MAFIA and Design mark to charge applicants with

“infringing” their rights, such disputes are not the proper subject for an opposition

proceeding.76

The Trademark Act provides several causes of action which the Board cannot

entertain in adversary proceedings. These include, inter alia, questions of

infringement and unfair competition. See Andersen Corp. v. Therm-O-Shield Int’l,

Inc., 226 USPQ 431, 432 n.5 (TTAB 1985) (Board may not entertain any claim

based on § 43(a) of the Trademark Act); Electronic Water Conditioners, Inc. v.

Turbomag Corp., 221 USPQ 162, 163 (TTAB 1984) (unfair competition and § 43(a)

claims are outside the jurisdiction of the Board). The function of the Board is to

determine whether there is a right to secure or maintain a registration; the Board

can do nothing to prevent parties from using a mark in a certain manner. Person’s

Co. v. Christman, 900 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 14 USPQ2d 1477, 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1990);

The Wallpaper Manufacturers, Ltd. v. Crown Wallcovering Corp., 680 F.2d 755, 766-

67, 214 USPQ 327, 336 (CCPA 1982).

The University has more recently used a Houndstooth Pattern in connection

with its licensed apparel and other University goods and services. The evidence as

a whole however is insufficient to show that the pertinent consumers recognize and

associate the Houndstooth Pattern as a source or sponsorship indicator of opposers

76 See footnote 3 on p. 9 of Opposers’ Trial Brief, “. . . Opposers have never claimed that

every instance in which the Houndstooth Pattern appears violates their rights. Instead,
only when the Houndstooth Pattern is used on products sold in Alabama or used in
connection with other trademarks or indicia of the University or Coach Bryant does such an
unauthorized use of the Houndstooth Pattern create consumer confusion and thus infringe
on Opposers’ rights in the Houndstooth Pattern.” (emphasis added).

43
Opposition No. 91187103

or that any such association was created prior to the December 3, 2007, filing date

of applicants’ application. Otto Roth, 640 F.2d at 1320, 209 USPQ at 44-45. For the

reasons set forth above, opposers have not established that their use of a

Houndstooth Pattern results in the pattern itself being perceived as a distinctive

mark and, therefore, cannot serve as a basis to deny registration of applicants’ mark

on likelihood of confusion grounds.

(b) Crimson and White Color Scheme

For more than one hundred years, the University has used a Crimson and

White color scheme in connection with its university-related goods and services.77

Through the testimony of two witnesses, the University presented evidence that, as

early as 1984, the University has licensed its Crimson and White color scheme as a

trademark in connection with apparel, prints, posters, cups, mugs, calendars, books,

and other products.78

The University contends that only when the Crimson and White color scheme

is either (1) used on products sold in Alabama or (2) used in connection with other

trademarks or indicia of the University, does applicants’ unauthorized use of their

mark create confusion and “thus infringe on Opposers’ rights” in the color scheme.79

Because applicants’ HOUNDSTOOTH MAFIA and Design application makes no

77 Gaston Testimony Dep. pp. 25-27 (Docket # 37).

78 Gaston Testimony Dep. p. 31, Ex. 42 OPP NORT 1137-1139 (Docket ## 37, 39); Drucker

5/20/10 Dep. pp. 18-19 (Docket # 41). Except for oral testimony that the University retains
a licensing agent to license the color scheme on the University’s behalf, there is no evidence
of the existence of the license agreement(s). Thus, it is unclear whether the color scheme is
licensed together with other trademarks of the University or how the University exercises
control over the use of its Crimson and White color scheme.
79 Opposers’ Trial Brief p. 14.

44
Opposition No. 91187103

color claim, the drawing of the mark is presumed to contemplate the use of the

mark in any color. See In re Data Packaging Corp., 453 F.2d 1300, 1302, 172 USPQ

396, 397 (CCPA 1972) and TMEP § 807.14(e)(i) (2012).

Even assuming applicants were to use their mark in red and white colors,

there is no likelihood of confusion with the University’s color scheme. The evidence

shows the University has rights, if any, in the color scheme only when the colors are

used directly in connection with goods and services provided or sponsored by the

University – not to every conceivable use of a red and white color scheme in the

state of Alabama.80 Therefore, in order for applicants’ mark to cause confusion with

the University’s color scheme as “used in connection with other trademarks or

indicia of the University,” applicant’s HOUNDSTOOTH MAFIA and Design mark

must be in red and white and be an indicia of the University. There is no evidence

that the University has ever used the term “houndstooth mafia” or even the word

“houndstooth” as a trademark or otherwise, and opposers have not established any

80 The University filed four federal trademark applications making a narrow claim to the

Crimson and White color scheme as embodied on helmets and jerseys. The University’s
applications for Crimson and White as applied to jerseys, Application Serial Nos. 85042,358
and 85975,049, were abandoned for failure to respond to the outstanding Final Office
Actions of April 23, 2012, which refused registration, based on nondistinctiveness under §§
1, 2, 3 and 45 of the Trademark Act, and insufficient evidence of acquired distinctiveness
under § 2(f) of the Trademark Act. The applications for the Crimson and White color
scheme as applied to helmets matured into registrations only after the examining attorney
accepted the University’s showing of acquired distinctiveness under § 2(f) of the Trademark
Act. In support of its claim of acquired distinctiveness, the University submitted over 250
pages of evidence and claimed use of crimson and white on helmets in connection with its
goods and services for over 40 years. See November 22, 2010 Responses to Office Action
submitted in connection with the application that was divided and ultimately issued as U.S.
Registration Nos. 3955150 and 4030682. By registering its Crimson and White color
scheme under § 2(f), the University conceded lack of distinctiveness and therefore was
required to prove acquired distinctiveness. See In re Tires, Tires, Tires Inc., 94 USPQ2d
1153, 1157 (TTAB 2009) citing In re MGA Entertainment Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1743, 1747
(TTAB 2007).

45
Opposition No. 91187103

trademark rights in the Houndstooth Pattern. Therefore, the University’s inclusion

of its Crimson and White color scheme into its game plan for this opposition

proceeding is quite simply, a “red herring.” Applicants’ HOUNDSTOOTH MAFIA

and Design mark does not constitute an indicia of the University and therefore,

even if it may be depicted in red and white colors, it is not likely to be confused with

the University’s Crimson and White color scheme.

To the extent the University contends applicants’ use of the

HOUNDSTOOTH MAFIA and Design mark in connection with a Crimson and

White color scheme on apparel or in advertising deserves to be penalized, this is

beyond the scope of the Board’s jurisdiction and for courts to address.81 See Amsted

Industries Inc. v. West Coast Wire Rope & Rigging Inc., 2 USPQ2d 1755, 1761

(TTAB 1987) (while an allegedly confusingly similar trade dress might give rise to a

claim of unfair competition based on a collocation of all features, including the

marks and the associated trade dress, such a claim is beyond the jurisdiction of the

Board); Stouffer Corporation v. Health Valley Natural Foods Inc., 1 USPQ2d 1900,

1905 (TTAB 1986); Po Folks, Inc. v. Kountry Folks Restaurants, Inc., 231 USPQ 313,

315 (TTAB 1986) (the Board must resolve likelihood of confusion by reference to the

marks of the parties as applied to restaurant services in the abstract, and must

leave to the courts the claims, if any, plaintiff may have concerning trade dress

infringement or unfair competition stemming from the alleged simulation of menus,

restaurant decor, and the like).

81 See Opposers’ Trial Brief pp. 1, 18, 24, 31.

46
Opposition No. 91187103

In view of the foregoing, whether applicants’ mark is used in an infringing

manner when it is placed on crimson and white hats or t-shirts is beyond the

Board’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, the federal court decisions urged by opposers

involving the involved defendants’ uses of the plaintiff-universities’ color schemes

and other identifying indicia are not pertinent to this proceeding.82

(c) PAUL W. BRYANT MUSEUM & Design Marks

The University has also alleged that applicants’ mark is likely to cause

confusion with its common law use of the Houndstooth Pattern as a component of

the following mark for the PAUL W. BRYANT MUSEUM and Design (“PAUL W.

BRYANT MUSEUM & Design mark”) for museum services and collateral products

including apparel:83

82 See Opposers’ Trial Brief pp. 22-25 citing to Bd. of Supervisors of the Louisiana State

Univ. and Agric. & Mech. College v. Smack Apparel Co., 438 F. Supp. 2d 653 (E.D. La.
2006), aff’d, 550 F.3d 465 (5th Cir. 2008); Texas Tech Univ. v. Spiegelberg, 461 F. Supp. 2d
510 (N.D. Tex. 2006); Univ. of Kansas v. Sinks, 644 F. Supp. 2d 1287 (D. Kan. 2008).
83 Further, the University has alleged that applicants’ mark is likely to cause confusion

with the mark shown in the previously registered Alabama State Trademark Registrations
for the PAUL W. BRYANT MUSEUM CIRCLE OF CHAMPIONS and Design mark shown
below:

In their trial brief at page 13, opposers identified the image of the PAUL W. BRYANT
MUSEUM & Design mark as the mark contained in each of the University’s Alabama State
Trademark Registrations. However, a review of the Registrations attached to opposers’
notice of reliance shows the mark that is actually covered in the State Registrations
includes the term “Circle of Champions” in script as shown in this footnote. The University
owns the following Alabama State Registrations issued on July 16, 1992 for the PAUL W.
BRYANT MUSEUM CIRCLE OF CHAMPIONS and Design mark: Nos. 105-422 for:
clothing namely, “jackets, shirts, ties, bibs, shoes, sweaters, caps, socks, etc.” in Class 25;
47
Opposition No. 91187103

Opposers have submitted images of web pages advertising the Paul W.

Bryant Museum and various apparel and merchandise sold by the Museum, all

bearing the PAUL W. BRYANT MUSEUM & Design mark.84 Opposers’ witness

testified that the PAUL W. BRYANT MUSEUM & Design logo has been used since

1988 in connection with museum services and apparel. The logo has also been used

on hats, t-shirts, shirts, infant one-piece outfits, lapel pins, bag clips, pens and

pencils, plastic cups and key chains, and in connection with online retail store

services.85 This evidence is sufficient to establish the University’s prior common

law rights in the PAUL W. BRYANT MUSEUM & Design mark for museum

services and apparel items. Inasmuch as the University has proven prior common

law rights in the PAUL W. BRYANT MUSEUM & Design mark, we bring out the

chains to measure for likelihood of confusion.

105-421 for: “seminars, tours, receptions, video tape s, lectures, and audio tapes,” in Class
41; and 105-419 for: “brochures, posters, calendars, books, and advertising materials,” in
Class 16.
Inasmuch as ownership of state trademark registrations does not constitute evidence of
common law trademark rights, the minimal evidence of use of the PAUL W. BRYANT
MUSEUM CIRCLE OF CHAMPIONS and Design mark is insufficient to establish
ownership of any common law rights in this mark.
84 The Paul W. Bryant Museum opened on October 8, 1988, and is owned by the University

and operated in collaboration with Bryant’s estate. Gaddy Testimony Dep. pp. 7, 21
(Docket # 36).
85 There is no testimony or evidence as to when the use on hats, t-shirts, shirts, infant one-

piece outfits, lapel pins, bag clips, pens and pencils, plastic cups and key chains, and online
retail store services first began. See Gaddy Testimony Dep. pp. 17-22, Exhibits 68-70
OPPS’ NORT 1339-1355 (Docket # 36).

48
Opposition No. 91187103

It is well established that marks must be compared in their entireties in

determining likelihood of confusion. However, there is nothing improper in stating

that, for rational reasons, more or less weight has been given to a particular feature

of a mark provided the ultimate conclusion rests on a consideration of the marks in

their entireties. In re National Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058 224 USPQ 749, 751

(Fed. Cir. 1985).

The literal element of applicants’ mark, i.e., “Houndstooth Mafia,” is a

fanciful term that corresponds to the background houndstooth pattern shown in the

mark.

In the PAUL W. BRYANT MUSEUM & Design mark, the literal portion of

the mark corresponds to the image of Coach Bryant, reinforcing the meaning of the

mark as relating to Coach Bryant.

As shown below, the only arguable shared element in the parties’ marks is a

peripheral patterned design:

However, any similarities end there as the patterned designs have different

appearances, and are utilized in different manners in each mark. The pattern in

applicants’ mark is a houndstooth pattern as that term is defined above while the

49
Opposition No. 91187103

pattern contained in the Museum mark is not the defined houndstooth pattern.86 In

the Museum mark, the pattern serves as the fabric of Coach Bryant’s hat, while in

applicants’ mark it serves as a decorative background. The pattern is not a

significant portion of the Museum mark and does not create a separate impression

apart from the mark as a whole.87 At most, the pattern in the PAUL W. BRYANT

MUSEUM & Design mark reinforces the association between Coach Bryant and a

patterned fedora. The secondary roles of the patterns in the parties’ respective

marks, together with the different appearances and manners in which it is used in

each mark, are insufficient for us to find that the marks are similar in overall

appearance or commercial impression.

When a composite mark contains both words and a design, the word portion

is more likely to be impressed upon a purchaser’s memory and to be used when

requesting the goods and services. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 1366,

101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908, 1911 (Fed. Cir. 2012) citing CBS Inc. v. Morrow, 708 F.2d

1579, 1581-82, 218 USPQ 198, 200 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Considering the marks in their

entireties, consumers will utilize the literal element of each mark in referring to the

marks. They will not assume that the marks identify a single source or sponsor

simply because applicant’s mark includes the word “houndstooth” on a houndstooth

86 There is no evidence showing that the pattern in the PAUL W. BRYANT MUSEUM &

Design mark is identical to the houndstooth pattern in applicants’ mark – and the patterns
do not look the same to us.
87 It is also unclear from the images of the mark provided by opposers that the pattern on

the hat worn by Coach Bryant in the Museum mark is in fact a houndstooth pattern. The
image of Coach Bryant shown on the Museum’s website also does not appear to show him
wearing a hat having a houndstooth pattern. Blackburn 3/31/09 Dep. Exhibit 6 OPPS’
NOR 144 (Docket #29).

50
Opposition No. 91187103

background while opposers’ mark contains an image of Coach Bryant wearing a

patterned fedora hat. Accordingly, viewing the marks in their entireties, we find

that applicants’ mark is not similar to the University’s PAUL W. BRYANT

MUSEUM & Design mark in sound, appearance, or commercial impression.

Opposers contend that applicants adopted their mark in bad faith with an

intent to create an association with Coach Bryant and the University. Intent may,

and ought to, be taken into account when resolving the issue of likelihood of

confusion when that issue is not free from doubt. Roger & Gallet S.A. v. Venice

Trading Co., 1 USPQ2d 1829, 1832 (TTAB 1987). However, if confusion is not likely

to result from the use of the marks, applicants’ motives cannot affect their right to

the registration sought. See Shoe Corp. of America v. Juvenile Shoe Corp. of

America, 266 F.2d 793, 795, 121 USPQ 510, 512 (CCPA 1959) (evidence of intent

may influence the ultimate question of likelihood of confusion, but is not necessarily

controlling); Boston Red Sox Baseball Club LP v. Sherman, 88 USPQ2d 1581, 1593

(TTAB 2008); Electronic Water Conditioners, Inc. v. Turbomag Corp., 221 USPQ

162, 165 (TTAB 1984). While applicants selected their mark because Alabama fans

associate the Houndstooth Pattern with Coach Bryant’s patterned fedora,88 there is

no evidence that applicants sought to confuse consumers as to the source or

sponsorship of their products and, more importantly, applicants’ HOUNDSTOOTH

MAFIA and Design mark is not similar to any of opposers’ asserted marks.

Accordingly, applicants’ intent in adopting their mark does not factor into our

88 Blackburn 3/31/09 Dep. pp. 33-34 (Docket # 29).

51
Opposition No. 91187103

likelihood of confusion determination with respect to the PAUL W. BRYANT &

Design mark.89

In determining likelihood of confusion, we do not need to consider every

duPont factor inasmuch as, “we are required only to consider those factors that are

relevant.” Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1241, 73 USPQ2d 1350,

1353 (Fed. Cir. 2004) citing Han Beauty, Inc. v. Alberto-Culver Co., 236 F.3d 1333,

1336, 57 USPQ2d 1557, 1559 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Because the marks in their

entireties are so dissimilar, evaluation of the remaining likelihood of confusion

factors is not necessary. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group, Inc., 637 F.3d

1344, 1355, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2011) citing Kellogg Co. v. Pack’em

Enterprises Inc., 951 F.2d 330, 333, 21 USPQ2d 1142, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“We

know of no reason why, in a particular case, a single duPont factor may not be

89 As the Court stated in the case of In re P. Ferrero & C.S.p.A., 479 F.2d 1395, 178 USPQ

167, 168 (CCPA 1973), “The fact that one mark may bring another mark to mind does not
in itself establish likelihood of confusion as to source”; and the Board stated in American
Express Company v. Payless Cashways, Inc., 222 USPQ 907, 909 (TTAB 1984), “The concept
of likelihood of confusion means more than the likelihood that the public will recall a
famous or well known mark upon seeing the same or similar mark used by another. There
must also be a reasonable basis for the public to attribute the particular goods and/or
services of another to the source of the goods and/or services associated with the well known
mark.” That is, even if an applicants’ mark might bring to mind the opposers’ mark, this
does not necessarily mean that consumers will be confused into believing that the two
marks indicate the same source of origin.
Nor do we find bad faith with respect to any of the other alleged marks asserted by
opposers inasmuch as there is no evidence that applicants sought to confuse consumers as
to the source or sponsorship of their products. See Fun-Damental Too, Ltd. v. Gemmy
Industries Corp., 111 F.3d 993, 1005, 42 USPQ2d 1348, 1357 (2d Cir. 1997) (“Hence, in the
absence of evidence, apart from proof of copying, that the defendant sought to confuse
consumers, bad faith should not be inferred simply from the fact of copying. On the other
hand, if there is additional evidence that supports the inference that the defendant sought
to confuse consumers as to the source of the product, we think the inference of bad faith
may fairly be drawn to support a likelihood of confusion determination.”).

52
Opposition No. 91187103

dispositive.”). Even if all of the remaining duPont factors are weighed in favor of

opposers, this would be insufficient to overcome the substantial differences between

the University’s PAUL W. BRYANT MUSEUM & Design mark and applicants’

HOUNDSTOOTH MAFIA and Design mark.

F. Opposers’ Section 2(a) Claims

We kickoff our discussion of opposers’ § 2(a) claims for false suggestion of a

connection and disparagement by noting the claims were pleaded and tried as

separate claims rather than as alternative claims. The creation of a false

suggestion of a connection results from the use of something that is consistent with

the plaintiff’s identity, while disparagement involves use of something inconsistent

with the plaintiff’s identity because it subjects a plaintiff to contempt or ridicule. If

a mark is disparaging, it would seem unlikely that the public would reasonably

believe a party would be “closely associated” with a mark that disparages itself.

Boston Red Sox Baseball Club LP v. Sherman, 88 USPQ2d 1581, 1593 (TTAB 2008).

Similarly, if a plaintiff proves that use of a term results in a false suggestion of a

connection, it would seem unlikely that the same term would also be disparaging.

Therefore, applicants’ mark may either create a false connection with opposers or

disparage them, but not both.

1. False Suggestion of a Connection

To prevail on their § 2(a) claim for false suggestion of a connection, opposers

must prove: (1) applicants’ mark is the same as or a close approximation of the

University’s or Coach Bryant’s previously used name or identity; (2) applicants’

mark would be recognized as such by purchasers, in that the mark points uniquely

53
Opposition No. 91187103

and unmistakably to the University or Coach Bryant; (3) opposers are not connected

with the goods and services that are sold or will be sold by applicants under their

mark; and (4) that the University or Coach Bryant’s name or identity is of sufficient

fame or reputation that when applicants’ mark is used on applicants’ goods, a

connection with the University or Coach Bryant would be presumed. See University

of Notre Dame du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 217 USPQ

505 (Fed. Cir. 1983), aff’g 213 USPQ 594 (TTAB 1982); Buffett v. Chi-Chi's, Inc., 226

USPQ 428, 429 (TTAB 1985); L. & J.G. Stickley Inc. v. Cosser, 81 USPQ2d 1956

(TTAB 2007); Boston Red Sox, 88 USPQ2d at 1593.

In support of their false suggestion of a connection claim, opposers argue: (i)

they have never licensed the Houndstooth Pattern or the Crimson and White color

scheme to applicants; (ii) applicants’ mark is a direct reference to the University

and Coach Bryant because the mark includes the Houndstooth Pattern in its

entirety, as well as the word “houndstooth;” and (iii) applicants admit their mark

refers to Coach Bryant and that was their intent in adopting the mark. In making

these arguments, opposers fail to show how the word “houndstooth” and the

houndstooth pattern in applicants’ mark closely approximate the identity of Coach

Bryant or the University.

Evolving out of the rights of privacy and publicity, the false suggestion of a

connection under § 2(a) of the Trademark Act was intended to preclude registration

of a mark which conflicts with another’s rights, even though not founded on the

familiar test of likelihood of confusion. Notre Dame, 703 F.2d at 1376, 217 USPQ at

54
Opposition No. 91187103

509. An opposer may prevail on the false suggestion of a connection ground when

its right to control the use of its identity is violated, even if the name claimed to be

appropriated was never commercially exploited by the opposer as a trademark or in

a manner analogous to trademark use. See Notre Dame, 703 F.2d at 1375, 217

USPQ at 508; Buffett, 226 USPQ at 429. However, while a party’s interest in its

identity does not depend for its existence on the adoption and use of a technical

trademark, a party must nevertheless have a protectable interest in a name (or its

equivalent). Thus, we focus on the key factor in the false suggestion analysis for

this case: whether applicants’ mark is a close approximation of opposers’ name or

identity, i.e., a right in which opposers possess a protectable interest.90

(a) Whether applicants’ mark closely approximates the identity of
Coach Bryant or the University

Because “houndstooth” and “houndstooth mafia” are not the “names” of either

opposer or Coach Bryant, we consider whether applicants’ mark is the same as or a

close approximation of their “identity.”

There is no evidence that the University has ever used the word

“houndstooth” or the term “houndstooth mafia.” Nor is there any evidence the

University is known by a name that includes the word “houndstooth.” While courts

have recognized that “nicknames of trademarks or names used only by the public

give rise to protectable rights in the owners of the trade name or mark which the

public modified,” Dallas Cowboys Football Club, Ltd. v. America’s Team Properties,

Inc., 616 F. Supp. 2d 622, 633, 92 USPQ2d 1325, 1330 (N.D. Tex. 2009) citing Nat’l

90 If opposers’ false suggestion claim fails on this ground, the remaining factors are moot.

55
Opposition No. 91187103

Cable Television Assoc. v. Am. Cinema Editors, Inc., 937 F.2d 1572, 1577, 19

USPQ2d 1424, 1428 (Fed. Cir. 1991), nothing in the record evidences use of

“houndstooth mafia” (or any other term containing the word “houndstooth”), to refer

to the University.91 This is in contradistinction to the situation present in Board of

Trustees of the University of Alabama v. BAMA-Werke Curt Baumann, 231 USPQ

408 (TTAB 1986), where the University, having demonstrated that BAMA was its

well-known nickname, prevailed on its claim for false suggestion of a connection

under § 2(a) of the Trademark Act. Here, there is no showing that “houndstooth” or

“houndstooth mafia” has been used as a nickname by or for the University.

While § 2(a) does not require that a plaintiff commercially exploit its identity

as a trademark, i.e., by applying it to goods or services sold in commerce, there

clearly must be some public use or promotion of the asserted identity in a manner

that provides a means of identifying the plaintiff. See, e.g., Notre Dame, 703 F.2d

1372, 217 USPQ at 509 (“a name cannot be protected in gross under § 2(a) any more

91 Oddly, opposers rely on applicants’ evidence to support media and fans’ use of the term

“Houndstooth Mafia” to refer to the University. (Opposers’ Trial Brief p. 30). However, a
reading of the Internet passages and Internet search results cited by opposers does not
support their contention. See APP NOR 073-81 (Now that the Houndstooth Mafia has gone
into hiding after their “I swear, I swear” forecasts of Spurrier to Alabama fell through . . .)
and APP NOR-082-84 (At $4million a year how long will it take the Houndstooth Mafia to
grow restless? How soon will he have to defeat Auburn? . . . ) (Docket # 34). Applicants
testified these references do not refer to them, and they do not know who was being
referred to in these passages. It is not apparent that the foregoing references are to the
University and, in fact, it appears that some references are not to the University but to the
broader public that follows or maintains an interest in University of Alabama football.
Similarly, none of the uses of “Houndstooth Mafia” identified in the Internet search results
contained in APP NOR 085-091 (Docket # 34) appear to identify the University. The only
relevant testimony about these passages is by applicant Pitts Jr. who testified that several
of the references refer to applicants and were initiated by applicant Pitts who used
“Houndstooth Mafia” as his “screen name.” See Pitts 3/21/2011 Dep. pp. 42-53 (Docket
# 59).

56
Opposition No. 91187103

than under § 2(d)”). There is no showing that the University used or promoted the

Houndstooth Pattern, much less the word “houndstooth,” in a manner that would

constitute the University’s identity.92 The University’s early use of a Houndstooth

Pattern on football uniforms was undoubtedly in recognition of Coach Bryant’s

patterned fedora because at that time, his fedora was the only use of the pattern by

either Coach Bryant or the University. Accordingly, there is no basis for us to

conclude that either the literal or design component of applicants’ mark closely

approximates the University’s identity.

While perhaps a closer question, there is also no basis for us to find that

applicants’ HOUNDSTOOTH MAFIA and Design mark closely approximates the

identity or persona of Coach Bryant. Although he was not referred to by a name

containing the word “houndstooth,” applicants and the media associate Coach

Bryant with a houndstooth fedora because he often wore a houndstooth fedora when

coaching at the University’s football games:

March 31, 2009 Discovery Deposition of William Pitts, Jr.
p. 19:93

Q. So how did you come up with the phrase
Houndstooth Mafia if it didn’t have anything to do with
Coach Bryant or the University of Alabama?

A. Well, I mean, it could. I mean, I would say it did
partly.

p. 20

92 The purpose of both the University’s PAUL W. BRYANT MUSEUM & Design mark

which contains an image of Coach Bryant wearing a patterned fedora, and the statue of
Coach Bryant wearing a patterned fedora located outside the University’s football stadium,
were to commemorate Coach Bryant, not a means for the University to identify itself.
93 Pitts 3/31/09 Dep. pp. 19, 32 (Docket # 29).

57
Opposition No. 91187103

Q. So it did partly come to you because of the
connection to Coach Bryant and the university?

A. Uh-huh. Yes. I’m sorry.

...

p. 32

Q. All right. Now, part of the Houndstooth Mafia
trademark that we’re here about today uses the word
houndstooth and the houndstooth pattern; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And it’s true, is it not, that that design is a
reference to the houndstooth hat that Coach Bear Bryant
wore at Alabama football games?

A. Yeah.

March 31, 2009 Discovery Deposition of Christopher
Blackburn p. 3294

Q. And people wear the houndstooth apparel because
they know that that’s what Coach Bryant wore; is that
right?

A. I would – yes, sir.

Q. And when you all designed your trademark, you
selected a houndstooth pattern to be in the field behind
the words Houndstooth Mafia; correct?

p. 33 (continued)

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You selected that houndstooth pattern because that
was what Coach Bryant used to have on his hat; right?

A. I selected it because that is the name of the logo,
Houndstooth Mafia.

94 Blackburn 3/31/09 Dep. pp. 32-37 (Docket # 29).

58
Opposition No. 91187103

...

Q. Isn’t it true, Mr. Blackburn, that you selected the
word Houndstooth as a part of your trademark because
for Alabama fans Houndstooth is associated with Coach
Bryant?

p. 34 (continued)

A. You could assume that. Yes.

Q. I don’t want to assume it. You’re under oath. Is it
true?

A. Was that the only reason, no, sir. That’s not the
only reason.

Q. Was it one of the reasons?

A. It was one of the reasons. Yes.

Q. And is that also one of the reasons that you
selected the houndstooth pattern to be behind the letters
in the logo?

A. The pattern was selected to go - - to coincide with
the words, with the verbiage.

The foregoing testimony shows that applicants’ mark was adopted to tap into

the affection that the University’s football fans have for Coach Bryant by

referencing the houndstooth fedora worn by Coach Bryant. Although the evidence

might well be viewed as establishing that a patterned fedora embodies the identity

or persona of Coach Bryant, it does not establish that a houndstooth pattern alone

(or with the word “houndstooth”) embodies Coach Bryant’s identity or persona.95

Courts have long recognized that a person’s rights, such as their right of publicity,

95 Notably, the houndstooth fedoras sold by the University bear the University’s “Stylized

A” trademark in red. Drucker 3/28/11 Dep. Exhibit 81 OPP NORT 1873 (Docket # 60).

59
Opposition No. 91187103

extend beyond the use of their name or likeness, to the unauthorized use of their

identity or persona. See Carson v. Here’s Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc., 698 F.2d

831, 218 USPQ 1 (6th Cir. 1983) (defendant’s use of “Here’s Johnny” for toilets

enjoined where phrase was used for years to introduce plaintiff-TV personality and

was licensed for use on products) and Motschenbacher v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,

498 F.2d 821 (9th Cir. 1974) (use of a photo of race car of a well-known professional

race car driver having distinctive decorations on the car violated driver’s right of

publicity even though name and likeness were not used). However, we do not

believe that the word “houndstooth” displayed on a background “houndstooth”

pattern rises to the level of being “unmistakably associated with” Coach Bryant.

See Notre Dame, 703 F.2d 1372, 217 USPQ at 509.

Past decisions have recognized that evidence of intent to suggest a connection

with a person is relevant to false association claims under § 2(a). See, e.g.,

Association pour la Defense et la Promotion de L’Oeuvre de Marc Chagall dite

Comite Marc Chagall v. Bondarchuk, 82 USPQ2d 1838, 1842-43 (TTAB 2007); Notre

Dame, 217 USPQ at 507, 509; Medtronic, 204 USPQ at 325. However, the

defendants in those decisions used the exact name or image of the target person or

institution. Here, in contrast, applicants’ mark is not the name or image of Coach

Bryant, with his patterned fedora, nor does it contain his patterned fedora per se.

The fact that applicants did not incorporate any of the foregoing in their mark

diminishes the significance of their admission that they intended their mark, in

60
Opposition No. 91187103

part, to “make[] reference to the houndstooth hat that Coach Bryant wore at

Alabama football games.”96

The Boston Red Sox case, where the defendant used the non-identical mark

SEX ROD to parody plaintiff’s RED SOX mark, recognized that the determination

of whether the challenged mark is a “close approximation” of the identity of the

target person under § 2(a) is a more stringent one, requiring a greater degree of

similarity between the two designations. Indeed, the similarity required for a “close

approximation” is akin to that required for a likelihood of confusion under § 2(d)

and is more than merely “intended to refer” or “intended to evoke.” In view of the

foregoing, the accused mark must do more than simply “bring to mind” or, as in this

case, “referencing” the hat worn by Coach Bryant. See Boston Red Sox, 88 USPQ2d

at 1592-93, (despite the fact that applicant’s mark was admittedly “intended to

refer” and “intended to evoke” the opposer, applicant’s mark is not a close

approximation of opposer’s identity, for the same reasons we found that the two

marks are not similar for purposes of the likelihood of confusion analysis); 3 J.

Thomas McCarthy, MCCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION § 19:76

(4th ed. June 2013); see also Notre Dame, 703 F.2d 1372, 217 USPQ at 509 (“Thus,

to show an invasion of one’s ‘persona,’ it is not sufficient to show merely prior

identification with the name adopted by another. . . . The mark . . .must point

uniquely to the [opposer].”).

96 Pitts Jr. 3/31/09 Dep., Exhibit 16 OPPs’ NOR 0252 (Docket # 29).

61
Opposition No. 91187103

We therefore find the evidence does not establish that the mark, comprising

the words HOUNDSTOOTH MAFIA displayed on a houndstooth-patterned

background, closely approximates the identity or persona of Coach Bryant and,

accordingly, cannot be “unmistakably associated” with Coach Bryant’s identity or

persona, nor does it “point uniquely” to him. We note that the term

HOUNDSTOOTH MAFIA in applicants’ mark is the dominant portion of the mark

and significantly distinguishes applicants’ mark from the patterned fedora-wearing

Coach Bryant. The meanings of the words in applicants’ mark, whether considered

separately or more appropriately as a unitary term -- even together with the

houndstooth pattern -- do not connote Coach Bryant, or any other person, but rather

convey the identity of some kind of group. Thus, opposers have failed to prove that

applicants’ mark falsely suggests a connection with opposers.

2. Disparagement

Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act also prohibits registration of a mark that

“consists of or comprises . . . matter which may disparage . . . persons, living or

dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or

disrepute.” 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a). Opposers contend that applicants’ mark is

disparaging of opposers and brings them into contempt and disrepute because the

word “mafia” refers to a criminal organization.97

In their main trial brief, opposers argue that the Board should apply the

Greyhound test, arguing applicants’ mark undeniably refers to the University and

97 Opposers’ Trial Brief p. 45; Opposers’ Reply Brief p. 20.

62
Opposition No. 91187103

Coach Bryant and is offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities. See

Greyhound Corp. v. Both Worlds Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1635, 1639 (TTAB 1988).

Conversely, applicants contend that the proper test is actually set forth in Lebanese

Arak Corp.98 The question of the appropriate test to apply requires an evaluation of

the nature of the party alleging the claim. In the present case, each opposer,

namely, the Board of Regents of the University of Alabama (an educational

institution) and the son of Coach Bryant, acting on behalf of his estate (an

individual), has argued that registration of applicants’ mark would cast doubt on

their commercial interests.99 Thus, we find that the appropriate test to apply to an

allegation of disparagement of a commercial entity is that found in Greyhound

where the Board set forth the two elements of a commercial disparagement claim: 1)

that the communication reasonably would be understood as referring to the

plaintiff; and 2) that the communication is disparaging, that is, would be considered

offensive or objectionable by a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.

Greyhound, 6 USPQ2d at 1639.

(a) Whether the Communication Reasonably Would be Understood
as Referring to the Opposers

The first prong of the Greyhound test requires a determination of whether

applicants’ mark would be understood as referring to opposers. This question

98 In In re Lebanese Arak Corp., the Board restated the test for disparagement where the

party alleging disparagement is the member of a non-commercial group, such as a religious
or racial group. In re Lebanese Arak Corp., 94 USPQ2d 1215 (TTAB 2010).
99 See, e.g., Opposers’ Trial Brief pp. 45-46 where opposers indicate they “strive to preserve

the esteemed reputations of the University and Coach Bryant through the selective
licensing of their marks” and complain “[A]pplicants’ disparaging use of Opposers’ Marks is
precisely the type of use that Opposers aim to prevent through their licensing programs.”

63
Opposition No. 91187103

implicitly requires us to engage in an analysis to determine the meaning, i.e., the

commercial impression, of applicants’ mark. Once we have established the meaning

and commercial impression of the mark, we must then determine whether that

commercial impression refers to either the University or Coach Bryant.

Opposers argue that applicants’ mark undeniably, unambiguously, and

unequivocally refers to the University and Coach Bryant.100 Opposers point to

applicants’ intent in adopting the HOUNDSTOOTH MAFIA and Design mark to

refer to Coach Bryant and the University, the presence of a houndstooth pattern, as

well as the word “houndstooth,” as evidence that applicants’ mark directly

references opposers. Opposers’ approach assumes that the presence of a

houndstooth pattern or the word “houndstooth” in applicants’ mark would be

immediately associated with opposers and places too great an emphasis on

applicants’ intent in “referencing” Coach Bryant’s patterned fedora. While Coach

Bryant is strongly associated with a houndstooth fedora, there is no evidence

showing that either the Houndstooth Pattern or the word “houndstooth” directly

and unequivocally refer to Coach Bryant.

Opposers and applicants have glossed over the definition of the term

“houndstooth,” the first word in applicants’ mark, focusing instead on the meaning

of the word “mafia.” As noted above, “houndstooth” is defined as “a pattern of

broken or jagged checks used on a variety of fabrics.” On its face, this term as used

in applicants’ mark does not to refer to anything but the actual textile pattern.

100 Opposers’ Trial Brief p. 44.

64
Opposition No. 91187103

Both opposers and applicants rely upon the definition for “mafia” from the

American Heritage Dictionary submitted by opposers:

[1] A secret criminal organization operating mainly in the
United Sates and Italy and engaged in illegal activities
such as gambling, drug-dealing, protection, and
prostitution. [2] Any of various similar criminal
organizations, especially when dominated by members of
the same nationality. [3] A secret criminal organization
operating mainly in Sicily since the early 19th centur

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11283763. Public record. Not legal advice.