The Petitioner in a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) matter concerning religions and religious organizations alleged that the Registrant’s mark was confusingly similar to the Petitioner’s senior registered mark. At issue was whether relevant consumers recognize the contested term as a brand name identifying a specific religious organization or, conversely, as a common name referring to a religion generally.
Keegan & Donato designed and executed a consumer survey using the established Teflon format to determine whether relevant consumers perceive the term at issue as a brand name (denoting a specific religious organization) or as a common name (denoting a religion generally). Because the matter concerned religious organizations rather than traditionally branded consumer products, the format was adapted accordingly: a term was classified as a brand name if respondents associated it with a specific religious organization, and as a common name if respondents associated it generally with a religion. The study consisted of hundreds of current and future Protestant Christians nationwide and tested the term at issue alongside a balanced set of internal controls — recognized religions and recognized religious organizations — to assess respondent comprehension and guard against guessing.
The study findings weighed in favor of the term at issue being recognized as a brand name. A majority of respondents indicated a belief that the term identifies a specific religious organization, while a much smaller share of respondents indicated a belief that the term refers to a religion generally. The study’s internal controls performed as expected, with a strong majority of respondents correctly classifying the control terms as either common names (i.e., religions) or brand names (i.e., religious organizations). Open-ended responses further supported the finding, with respondents who identified the contested term as a religious organization frequently explaining that it denotes a specific group that practices and teaches a defined doctrine.
Because the study employed a rigorous, appropriately adapted methodology with internal controls to assess respondent comprehension and account for guessing, the results provided reliable evidence on the threshold question in the case: whether consumers understand the contested term to function as a source-identifying brand name rather than as a generic descriptor.