American Outdoor Brands Corporation

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 14, 2020

87305164 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 14, 2020)

Mailed: April 14, 2020
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
————
In re American Outdoor Brands Corporation
_____
Serial Nos.:
87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169, 87305170
_____
Hara K. Jacobs of Ballard Spahr, LLP
for American Outdoor Brands Corporation.

Bianca Allen, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 123,
Susan Hayash, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Bergsman, Adlin and Hudis, Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Adlin, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Applicant American Outdoor Brands Corporation filed 30 applications to register
AMERICAN OUTDOOR BRANDS CORPORATION, one seeking registration of the
proposed mark in standard characters, and the other 29 seeking registration of the
mark in this design form: . This decision addresses the 12
previously-consolidated applications identified above (the “Group II Cases”),
consisting of standard character application Serial No. 87228558 (the “’558
This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

2
Application”1), and 11 applications to register the design form of the mark. Two of the
12 applications, including the parent ’558 Application, identify financial information
and shareholder and investor relations services, while the remaining 10 identify
outdoor-related products and services, most of which are specifically related to
firearms. We address the remaining 18 cases, which have also already been
consolidated (the “Group I Cases”), in a separate decision.2
Because the examining attorneys found in all of the Group II Cases that the literal
portion of Applicant’s mark, AMERICAN OUTDOOR BRANDS CORPORATION, is
primarily geographically descriptive of the involved goods and services under Section
2(e)(2) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(2), registration of the standard
character ’558 Application was refused; the examining attorneys also refused
registration of the remaining applications absent a disclaimer of the literal portion of
Applicant’s mark in its entirety.3 In addition, the examining attorneys found that
Applicant failed to establish its alternative claim that AMERICAN OUTDOOR
BRANDS CORPORATION has acquired distinctiveness. After the refusals became

1 We use the same abbreviated format to identify the other applications.
2 The 18 Group I Cases are application Serial Nos. 87305138, 87305140, 87305141, 87305142,
87305143, 87305144, 87305145, 87305146, 87305147, 87305151, 87305154, 87305155,
87305156, 87305157, 87305158, 87305159, 87305162 and 87305163.
3 The 30 Group I and Group II Cases originally were split among several examining attorneys,
each of whom handled and developed evidence in multiple cases. Eventually, all 30 cases
were assigned to Examining Attorney Bianca Allen.
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

3
final, Applicant appealed and filed requests for reconsideration that were denied. In
most of the Group II Cases, Applicant also requested and was granted a remand to
introduce additional evidence that it alleged “is directly relevant to the acquired
distinctiveness of Applicant’s mark,” and successfully moved to consolidate the two
groups of cases as indicated. 4, 7 and 9, 10 TTABVUE;4 8 TTABVUE in the ’167
Application. Applicant and the Examining Attorney filed briefs.
I. The Applications
Applicant filed the ’558 and ’588 Applications on November 7, 2016, seeking
registration of its marks for financial information and shareholder and investor
relations services under Section 1(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), based
on use of the marks since January 2017; Applicant filed the remaining Group II
applications on January 18, 2017, based on an alleged bona fide intent to use the
mark in commerce under Section 1(b) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b). In
each Group II application, Applicant disclaimed “BRANDS CORPORATION” apart
from the mark as shown, and made an alternative claim that “AMERICAN
OUTDOOR BRANDS CORPORATION” has acquired distinctiveness pursuant to
Trademark Act Section 2(f), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f). Each application to register the

4 Unless otherwise indicated, citations are to the record in the ’558 Application. In citations
to TTABVUE, the Board’s online docketing system, the number preceding “TTABVUE”
corresponds to the docket entry number(s), and any number(s) following “TTABVUE” refer
to the page number(s) of the docket entry where the cited materials appear. Citations to the
TSDR database are to the downloadable .pdf version of the documents.
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

4
design form of the mark includes this description of the mark: “The mark consists of
the wording ‘AMERICAN OUTDOOR BRANDS CORPORATION’ adjacent to a
silhouette of a mountain range with two mountain peaks resting above a silhouette
of a curved line representing a stream.” The identified goods and services in each
application are set forth in their entirety in the Appendix to this decision.
II. Applicant
Applicant, known until November 2016 as Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation,
is the parent of Smith & Wesson Corp. August 16, 2017 Office Action Response TSDR
5-6. SMITH & WESSON “has been a brand name synonymous with firearms” since
1852. Id. at 5.
Over the years, “[t]hrough a series of acquisitions, Smith & Wesson has diversified
and expanded its well-known brand outside of the firearms industry.” Id. In fact, at
the time of its name change, Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation held “more than
eighteen highly respected and well-known consumer brands in such diverse areas as
personal safety and survival tools such as survival kits, camp kitchen products, and
fire starters; hunting products, such as bipods and tripods, hunting knives, hand
saws, axes, and hatchets; and recreational sports apparel and related accessories.”
Id. at 6. Applicant claims “[w]ith every strategic acquisition, Smith & Wesson draws
closer to its strategic goal of being the leading provider of products for the shooting,
hunting, and recreational sports industries.” Id. at 5-6.
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

5
Applicant’s new name and logo, shown in the involved applications, “were chosen
as a representation of the brand and growing array of brands in the shooting, hunting,
and recreational sporting markets … to create an impression of adventure and
freedom and capture the rugged spirit possessed by the active lifestyle of the
consumer for the AMERICAN OUTDOOR BRANDS CORPORATION™ products.”
Id. at 6. As Applicant’s webpage states, it offers “some of the most popular names in
the shooting, hunting and rugged outdoor enthusiast markets,” to “consumers who
have a passion for the adventure, freedom, and personal inspiration offered by
embracing the great outdoors”:

September 27, 2017 Office Action TSDR 78. An article in the Springfield,
Massachusetts Republican about Applicant’s name change states “Venerable Smith
& Wesson completed its transition Tuesday to a new corporate name – American
Outdoor Brands Corporation – which is more fitting with its diversification strategy.”
March 27, 2018 Office Action response TSDR 52. A Wall Street Journal article quotes
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

6
Applicant’s spokeswoman as saying “We believe the new name better reflects our
many brands and products and our growth strategy.” Id. at 48.
III. Geographic Descriptiveness and the Disclaimer Requirement
The Examining Attorney argues that the standard character mark in the ’558
Application is unregistrable and that Applicant must disclaim the literal portion of
its mark in each of the remaining Group II applications because AMERICAN
OUTDOOR BRANDS CORPORATION is a combination of a geographically
descriptive word (AMERICAN) and a term which merely describes the provider of
Applicant’s goods and services, or those goods and services themselves (OUTDOOR
BRANDS CORPORATION). 13 TTABVUE 9-19 (Examining Attorney’s Appeal Brief
at 8-18).
Applicant argues, however, that the literal portion of its mark is not descriptive,
geographically or otherwise: “AMERICAN OUTDOOR BRANDS CORPORATION is
amorphous, conveying nothing specific, but conjuring up a sense of freedom – a calling
to unexplored places.” 11 TTABVUE 12 (Applicant’s Appeal Brief at 11). More
specifically, Applicant claims that AMERICAN is “an inherently nuanced term,”
which “engenders the impression of the red, white, and blue; of hope and freedom; of
a dream. ‘AMERICAN’ is a way of life, a culture.” Id. at 15. In fact, according to
Applicant, the “geographic meaning of ‘AMERICAN OUTDOOR’ is different for every
consumer. It could be the Colorado Rockies, the California Redwoods, the
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

7
Shenandoah Valley, or Central Park in New York City. It means nowhere in
particular.” Id. at 16.
With respect to the 11 Group II applications for the design form of Applicant’s
mark, under Section 6(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1056(a), “[t]he Director
may require the applicant to disclaim an unregistrable component of a mark
otherwise registrable,” such as a component which is merely descriptive under
Section 2(e)(1) of the Act or primarily geographically descriptive under Section 2(e)(2)
of the Act. Failure to comply with a disclaimer requirement is a basis for refusing
registration. See In re Slokevage, 441 F.3d 957, 78 USPQ2d 1395, 1399-1400 (Fed.
Cir. 2006); In re Stereotaxis, Inc., 429 F.3d 1039, 77 USPQ2d 1087, 1089 (Fed. Cir.
2005).
A. The Test for Assessing Geographic Descriptiveness
In order to establish that the literal portion of Applicant’s mark is primarily
geographically descriptive, the Examining Attorney must establish that: (1) the
primary significance of the term is the name of a place known generally to the public;
(2) the public would make a goods/place association, i.e. believe that the goods for
which the applicant seeks registration originate in that place; and (3) the source of
the goods is the geographic region named in the mark. In re Newbridge Cutlery Co.,
776 F.3d 854, 113 USPQ2d 1445, 1448-49 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Societe
Generale Des Eaux Minerales De Vittel S.A., 824 F.2d 957, 3 USPQ2d 1450, 1452 (Fed.
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

8
Cir. 1987) and In re Jacques Bernier, Inc., 894 F.2d 389, 13 USPQ 1725 (Fed. Cir.
1990)); TRADEMARK MANUAL OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE (TMEP) § 1210.01(a) (2018).
Generally, adding a descriptive or generic term (as the Examining Attorney
alleges OUTDOOR BRANDS CORPORATION to be) to a geographic one (as
AMERICAN is alleged to be) does not alter the geographic term’s geographic
significance. See e.g. In re Cheezwhse.com, Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1917, 1920 (TTAB 2008)
(NORMANDIE CAMEMBERT primarily geographically descriptive of Camembert
cheese, because “[i]t is settled that the primarily geographic significance of a term
(like NORMANDIE) is not overcome by the addition of a generic term (like
CAMEMBERT)”); In re JT Tobacconists, 59 USPQ2d 1080, 1083 (TTAB 2001) (“The
additional presence in applicant's mark of the generic terminology ‘CIGAR
COMPANY’ for an entity in the business of selling cigars and related cigar products
such as cigar cases and humidors does not detract from or otherwise alter the fact
that the primary significance of the mark as a whole is geographical.”); In re
California Pizza Kitchen Inc., 10 USPQ2d 1704, 1705 (TTAB 1988) (same).
B. Is AMERICAN OUTDOOR BRANDS CORPORATION Primarily
Geographically Descriptive?
The Examining Attorney has established that the literal portion of Applicant’s
mark is geographically descriptive, as AMERICAN is a geographically descriptive
term which is combined with terms that are at best merely descriptive of Applicant’s
goods and services.
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

9
1. The Primary Significance of AMERICAN is a Place Known
Generally to the Public
The Examining Attorney has established that “AMERICAN” means “of or relating
to the United States of America or its people or language or culture.” September 27,
2017 Office Action TSDR 7-17 (printouts from “ahdictionary.com,” “merriam-
webster.com” and “vocabulary.com”). These dictionary definitions belie Applicant’s
argument, which is unsupported by any evidence, that “AMERICAN” is amorphous,
or that it means freedom or conveys any other non-geographic concept or feeling. See
In re Wada, 194 F.3d 1297, 52 USPQ2d 1539, 1541 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (affirming refusal
to register NEW YORK WAYS GALLERY and rejecting mere argument, unsupported
by any evidence, that there is a “New York style” of the goods at issue, or that NEW
YORK evokes “an aura of status or prestige”). And as the Examining Attorney points
out, the adjectival form of a geographic location, such as AMERICAN, is treated the
same as the name of the geographic location itself. See e.g. In re Premiere Distillery,
LLC, 103 USPQ2d 1483, 1484 (TTAB 2012) (finding that the primary significance of
REAL RUSSIAN for vodka is geographic, stating “[i]t is well-established that
adjectival forms of geographic terms are also considered primarily geographically
descriptive”); In re Joint-Stock Co. “Baik,” 80 USPQ2d 1305, 1310 (TTAB 2006)
(BAIKALSKAYA, which means “from Baikal,” is primarily geographically descriptive
of vodka).
Further, not only has Applicant failed to introduce any evidence that AMERICAN
has a non-geographic meaning in the context of its goods or services, but Applicant’s
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

10
own use of the term reveals that AMERICAN is used in its geographic sense. For
example, a Napa Valley Register article on Applicant’s name change quotes
Applicant’s CEO James Debney as saying “We believe the name ‘American Outdoor
Brands Corporation’ will better reflect our family of brands, our broad range of
product offerings and our plan to continue building upon our portfolio of strong
American brands.” March 27, 2018 Request for Reconsideration TSDR 41; see also
September 27, 2017 Office Action TSDR 78 (essentially the same quote on Applicant’s
webpage). Despite being confronted with this evidence throughout prosecution of its
involved applications, Applicant has never even contended, much less presented
evidence, that its stated desire to build a portfolio of “strong American brands” means
strong “freedom” brands, or that its use of the term “AMERICAN” in this way has
any meaning other than its geographic meaning.
In any event, even if Applicant had established that AMERICAN may have other
meanings in different contexts, which it did not, that would not alter the term’s
primarily geographic meaning when used in Applicant’s proposed mark for
Applicant’s identified goods and services. In re Hollywood Lawyers Online, 110
USPQ2d 1852, 1858 (TTAB 2014) (finding HOLLYWOOD LAWYERS ONLINE
primarily geographically descriptive of attorney referrals, pointing out that “without
additional elements in the mark to detract from the geographic significance, there is
no allusion to the alternative meaning referencing the ‘glamour’ of the film
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

11
industry”);5 In re Opryland USA Inc., 1 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-13 (TTAB 1986)
(NASHVILLE NETWORK primarily geographically descriptive of television program
production and distribution, because the programming has “a substantial enough
relation to Nashville, Tennessee,” even though the term “has other imagery than the
city of Nashville,” stating “[b]ecause a term may have other meanings does not
necessarily alter the primacy of its geographical significance”); In re Cookie Kitchen,
Inc., 228 USPQ 873, 874 (TTAB 1986) (MANHATTAN & Design primarily
geographically deceptively misdescriptive of cookies, even though term has other
meanings, such as a Manhattan cocktail); In re Jack’s Hi-Grade Foods, Inc., 226
USPQ 1028, 1029 (TTAB 1985) (NEAPOLITAN primarily geographically deceptively
misdescriptive of sausage even though term has other meanings, such as a type of
multi-flavored ice cream). Here, based on multiple, consistent dictionary definitions
of the term AMERICAN, and Applicant’s own use of the term in connection with its
goods and services, we find that AMERICAN is primarily geographically descriptive.
When we consider Applicant’s mark as a whole, we find that the primary
geographic significance of AMERICAN does not change. As indicated, Applicant has
disclaimed BRANDS CORPORATION in each application. This is essentially an
admission that BRANDS CORPORATION is merely descriptive. In re Carlson, 91

5 The design element of Applicant’s mark does not support a finding that AMERICAN has a
non-geographic meaning or commercial impression. While the mountain peaks and stream
depicted in the design element could be located anywhere, given the established meaning of
“AMERICAN,” consumers would likely perceive the pictured peaks and stream as American.
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

12
USPQ2d 1198, 1200 (TTAB 2009); Bass Pro Trademarks LLC v. Sportsman’s
Warehouse, Inc., 89 USPQ2d 1844, 1851 (TTAB 2008). See also Alcatraz Media Inc.
v. Chesapeake Marine Tours Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1750, 1762 (TTAB 2013), aff’d mem.,
565 Fed. Appx. 900 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In any event, Applicant concedes the point in its
Appeal Brief, stating that it seeks registration “with a disclaimer of ‘BRANDS
CORPORATION,’ terms that, unlike the mark as a whole, directly convey
information or describe a purpose of [Applicant’s] products or services.” 11 TTABVUE
12.
Applicant argues that it need not disclaim AMERICAN OUTDOOR (and that its
standard character mark is registrable with the disclaimer of only BRANDS
CORPORATION) because AMERICAN OUTDOOR is “unitary,” and suggestive
rather than merely descriptive.6 Id. at 12-13. We disagree.
In fact, AMERICAN OUTDOOR is not unitary in Applicant’s proposed mark. The
elements of a unitary mark are “inseparable,” in that “the mark has a distinct
meaning of its own independent of the meaning of its constituent elements.” Dena

6 A mark is deemed to be merely descriptive, within the meaning of Trademark Act Section
2(e)(1), if it immediately conveys knowledge of a quality, feature, function, characteristic or
purpose of the goods for which it is used. In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 82
USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009));
and In re Abcor Development, 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 217-18 (CCPA 1978). A mark
need not immediately convey an idea of each and every specific feature of the goods in order
to be considered merely descriptive; rather, it is sufficient that the mark describes one
significant attribute, function or property of the goods. In re Gyulay, 3 USPQ2d at 1010.
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

13
Corp. v. Belvedere Int’l, Inc., 950 F.2d 1555, 21 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
That is not the case here.
To the contrary, the Examining Attorney has established that if any element of
AMERICAN OUTDOOR BRANDS CORPORATION is unitary, it is the term “outdoor
brands,” which is commonly used by third parties and the media to identify entities
such as Applicant which offer products intended to be used or services related to the
outdoors. For example, an Outside magazine article entitled “These Are the Coolest
Small Brands We Saw at Outdoor Retailer” states: “We give the big outdoor brands
a lot of love at Outdoor Retailer – and for good reason. Companies like Patagonia and
The North Face make great products.” September 27, 2017 Office Action TSDR 43-49
(printout from “outsideonline.com”) (emphasis added). A Hiking for Her website
article entitled “The Best Outdoor Brands for Hikers” identifies the characteristics
of “the best outdoor brands.” It includes lists of: “outdoor brands focused on wide
selection” (including REI and Sierra Trading Post); and “outdoor brands focused on
social responsibility” (including Patagonia and REI). Id. at 60-62 (printout from
“hiking-for-her.com”) (emphasis added). One of Applicant’s apparent competitors
which also sells hunting and fishing gear operates under the trade name PRADCO
OUTDOOR BRANDS:
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

14

Id. at 52 (printout from “pradcooutdoorbrands.com”). A section of Field & Stream’s
website is devoted to the “Top Outdoor Brands”:

Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

15
Id. at 50 (printout from “fieldandstreamshop.com”). The Industry Insights section of
Migrate Outdoor includes an article entitled “Why Outdoor Brands Need Awesome
Content”:

Id. at 64-66 (printout from “migrateoutdoor.com”) (emphasis added). An Adventure
Journal article entitled “Outdoor Brands That Guarantee Their Gear for Life”
separates outdoor product companies – including Jansport, Eddie Bauer, Gore-Tex,
The North Face and REI – into two groups, those which provide lifetime warranties
for their products, and those which provide limited lifetime warranties:
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

16

Id. at 54-59 (printout from “adventure-journal.com”). Finally, news articles use the
term “outdoor brand(s)” to refer to entities offering outdoor goods, such as hunting,
fishing, camping, climbing and related products:
A Business Briefing in the Canton, Ohio Repository states
that “L.L. Bean is positioning itself as an outdoor brand
focused less on individual pursuits and more on family and
friends enjoying the outdoors, whether it’s a remote lake or
local park.”

The Salt Lake City Deseret Morning News article “Ogden
Signs Agreement with European Firms” quotes Ogden’s
Mayor as saying “Hosting the EU4Sports Alliance will
connect Ogden with outdoor industry partners and
discover synergies for business growth … We want to open
doors to global outdoor brands and support their efforts
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

17
as they look to Ogden’s mountain to metro community as
their partner for U.S. market expansion.”

A Minneapolis St. Paul Business Journal article quotes
Winnebago’s CEO as saying “The Winnebago brand and
the company is almost iconic. It’s a great part of the history
of American business and outdoor brands, but yet it had
been struggling to some degree over the last 10 years.”

A Denver Post article indicates that Backbone Media
“represents dozens of outdoor brands that are forging the
new progressive outdoor economy ethos.”

A Manchester, New Hampshire Union Leader article
states “Colleen Vien is the sustainability director at
Timberland, a global outdoor brand based in New
Hampshire.”

A Memphis Commercial Appeal article states “Mossy Oak
is one of today’s iconic outdoor brands. With beginnings
as a maker of camouflage clothing for hunting, Mossy Oak
has grown into a family of brands.”

A Lewiston Idaho Morning Tribune article about Vista
Outdoors states “Outside of its guns and ammunition line,
it holds a number of outdoor brands such as Jimmy Styks
paddleboards, CamelBak and Camp Chef.”

A St. Louis Post-Dispatch article about a clothing designer
states that he designs a “rugged collection of flannel with a
modern fit and details that set it apart from other outdoor
brands.”

A Quad City Times article on activewear states “most
outdoor brands have moved away from the ‘pink it and
shrink it’ philosophy that frustrated female outdoor
enthusiasts for so long.”

Id. at 68-75, 77 (emphasis added). Thus, to the extent that any part of the literal
portion of Applicant’s mark is unitary, it is OUTDOOR BRANDS rather than
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

18
AMERICAN OUTDOOR. It is of course significant that this evidence of use of
OUTDOOR BRANDS also establishes that there are many American “outdoor
brand(s)” companies, several of which are “corporations.”
In any event, even if OUTDOOR BRANDS was not a unitary term, that would not
matter here. Disclaimers of AMERICAN and OUTDOOR still would be required. As
we found above, AMERICAN is primarily geographically descriptive. Moreover,
OUTDOOR directly conveys information about and describes a purpose of Applicant’s
identified goods and services, which are primarily outdoor-focused, as revealed by the
third party and media uses of the term “outdoor brands” highlighted above. This is
also revealed by Applicant’s arguments made in other applications to register the
same term, in which Applicant claimed “[w]here ‘AMERICAN’ appears in
combination with ‘OUTDOOR’ and the mountain design, the overall commercial
impression of the mark impressed upon the relevant consumers is a strong and
powerful brand of companies committed to providing products for open-air
adventures.” April 23, 2018 Office Action in ’588 Application TSDR 23-27.
The term OUTDOOR also directly conveys information about Applicant itself, as
Applicant is comprised of a number of outdoor brands. Applicant’s conclusory
contention to the contrary notwithstanding, using AMERICAN and OUTDOOR
together does not alter the meaning of either of the term’s constituent elements.
Indeed, Applicant is an American company offering outdoor products and services.
Even if AMERICAN is interpreted as modifying OUTDOOR, such that it conveys that
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

19
Applicant’s brands are intended for use in outdoor environments in the United States,
the term would still not amount to anything more than its constituent elements.7
Turning back to the literal portion of the proposed mark as a whole, as explained
above, adding a descriptive or generic term (as the evidence shows OUTDOOR
BRANDS CORPORATION to be) to a geographic one (AMERICAN) does not alter the
geographic term’s geographic significance. In re Cheezwhse.com, 85 USPQ2d at 1917;
In re JT Tobacconists, 59 USPQ2d at 1080; In re California Pizza Kitchen, 10 USPQ2d
at 1704. In other words, Applicant’s use of OUTDOOR BRANDS CORPORATION for
a United States corporation comprised of many outdoor brands does not detract from
or otherwise alter the fact that the primary significance of the literal portion of
Applicant’s mark as a whole is geographic. Applicant is an American outdoor brands
corporation.
The literal element of Applicant’s mark also is geographically descriptive when
considered in the context of the specific goods and services identified in the involved
applications. In fact, terms such as AMERICAN OUTDOOR BRANDS

7 Applicant’s argument that “AMERICAN OUTDOOR is capable of many different
meanings,” 16 TTABVUE 21, is unsupported by any evidence, and unpersuasive in any event.
“It is well settled that so long as any one of the meanings of a term is descriptive, the term
may be considered to be merely descriptive.” In re Chopper Industries, 222 USPQ 258, 259
(TTAB 1984); see also, In re IP Carrier Consulting Group, 84 USPQ2d 1028, 1034 (TTAB
2007); In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591, 593 (TTAB 1979).

Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

20
CORPORATION that describe the provider of a good or service are themselves often
unprotectable, unless they have acquired distinctiveness. For example, in In re The
Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1301, 102 USPQ2d 1217 (Fed. Cir.
2012), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s finding that NATIONAL CHAMBER
is merely descriptive of “promoting the interests of businesspersons or industry on a
national level, or connecting local chambers of commerce through a nationwide
network,” because CHAMBER can refer to a chamber of commerce and chambers of
commerce typically offer those services. In fact, some of the applicant’s services were
a “core function” of chambers of commerce. Id. at 1221.
Similarly, in this case, various American outdoor brands typically provide the
types of goods and services for which Applicant seeks to register its mark, most of
which relate to hunting, fishing, shooting, climbing, camping and other outdoor sports
and endeavors.8 See also In re Major League Umpires, 60 USPQ2d 1059 (TTAB 2001)
(MAJOR LEAGUE UMPIRE merely descriptive of clothing, face masks and chest
protectors provided by a company owned and operated by Major League Baseball
umpires because it describes the provider and designer of the goods); In re E.I. Kane,
Inc., 221 USPQ 1203 (TTAB 1984) (OFFICE MOVERS, INC. generic for moving
services for offices); In re Career Employment Services, Inc., 219 USPQ 951, 952

8 This is true whether the outdoor brands operate independently or under a parent
corporation or holding company which owns many different outdoor brands, such as
Applicant.
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

21
(TTAB 1983) (THE PROFESSIONAL HEALTHCARE PEOPLE generic for providing
temporary employment services for medical personnel because the term refers to the
applicant and its employees who place temporary workers); In re Old Boone Distillery
Co., 172 USPQ 697, 698 (TTAB 1972) (DISTILLER’S LIGHT merely descriptive of
scotch whisky because it “conveys the information that applicant’s product is a
distiller’s light blended scotch whisky”). Similarly, here, AMERICAN OUTDOOR
BRANDS CORPORATION merely describes a conglomeration of outdoor brands
based in the United States that provide outdoor products and services.
a. The Services Identified in the ’558 and ’588 Applications
The ‘558 and ‘588 Applications seek registration for “providing financial
information; shareholder and investor relations and shareholder services, namely,
providing corporate financial analysis, providing investors with financial
information,” rather than for services which are specifically outdoor-focused.
Nevertheless, AMERICAN OUTDOOR BRANDS CORPORATION describes the
provider of Applicant’s financial information and shareholder and investor relations
services, i.e. a United States outdoor brand company, just as it describes the provider
of Applicant’s other goods and services.
In fact, in an analogous case involving the mark FirsTier & Design for banking
services, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the
requirement that Applicant disclaim the exclusive right to use the term “FirsTier.”
In re Omaha Nat’l Corp., 819 F.2d 1117, 2 USPQ2d 1859 (Fed. Cir. 1987). There, the
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

22
Federal Circuit relied on evidence “that in the banking industry, banks can be ranked
in 'tiers′” to find the mark merely descriptive. Id. at 1861. It then rejected the
applicant’s argument that findings of descriptiveness should be limited to “terms
which identify a characteristic or quality of an article or service”:
We cannot agree. The factual situations in which mere
descriptiveness must be resolved are too varied to lend
themselves to resolution under any rigid formula … In any
event, appellant admits that it could not preclude the
descriptive use of “first tier” being made in connection with
banking services or interfere with the equal rights of others
to denominate themselves “first tier” banks. It asserts it
seeks only protection for “FirsTier” in the distinctive design
set forth in its application. A disclaimer of exclusive rights
in the phrase “first tier” apart from the mark as shown in
the drawing will secure to appellant exactly the extent of
rights it desires.

Id. (citations omitted). Thus, in this case, we are not constrained by any “rigid
formula.” Terms which describe the type of entity which offers services may be
descriptive of the services themselves. In re The Phone Co., Inc., 218 USPQ 1027,
1028 (TTAB 1983) (“The Trademark Examining Attorney essentially wishes us to
decide that a mark which names the type of commercial establishment from which
particular goods come is merely descriptive of those goods. We believe the Examining
Attorney is correct and affirm his refusal.”). Here, as in In re The Phone Co., the literal
portion of Applicant’s mark names the type of commercial establishment from which
particular financial information and shareholder and investor services come: a
United States corporation consisting of outdoor brands.
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

23
The record in this case reveals that United States companies that offer outdoor
products are known as “outdoor brands,” just as some banks were shown to be known
as “first tier” in In re Omaha Nat’l. Also, here, as in In re Omaha Nat’l, Applicant
should not acquire rights which could enable it to preclude competitor “outdoor
brands” from using that term, or AMERICAN, or CORPORATION, separately or
together, for outdoor products or services, or other goods and services which would be
provided by an “American outdoor brands corporation.” See also In re Abcor
Development, 200 USPQ at 217 (“The major reasons for not protecting [merely
descriptive] marks are … to maintain freedom of the public to use the language
involved, thus avoiding the possibility of harassing infringement suits by the
registrant against others who use the mark when advertising or describing their own
products.”). Financial information and shareholder and investor relations services
could be provided by any of Applicant’s competitor “American outdoor brands
corporations,” whether they are publicly traded or otherwise have shareholders or
investors.
Here, the literal element of Applicant’s mark does not only describe the provider
of Applicant’s financial and shareholder services. Under the facts of this case
Applicant’s mark also describes those services themselves. Indeed, the question we
face is “not whether someone presented with only the mark could guess what the
goods or services are. Rather, the question is whether someone who knows what the
goods or services are will understand the mark to convey information about them.”
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

24
DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Medical Devices Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 103 USPQ2d
1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Tower Tech Inc., 64 USPQ 2d 1314, 1316-
17 (TTAB 2002)). Someone who knows that Applicant offers financial information and
shareholder and investor relations services will understand “American outdoor
brands corporation” to convey information about not only the provider of those
services, i.e. a United States conglomerate of companies which offer outdoor products
and services, but those services themselves, specifically that they relate to “American
outdoor brands.”
In fact, Applicant’s use of the plural “brands” rather than the singular “brand”
increases the descriptiveness of the proposed mark. That is, a conglomeration of
multiple brands would likely be perceived as a holding company, or otherwise more
encompassing than a single brand, and thus more likely to provide financial
information and investor services than a single stand alone brand. In fact, a holding
company (or “brands corporation”) is exactly the type of entity that would be more
likely to provide shareholder and investor relations services than a stand-alone entity
focused on core products which might be expected to assign shareholder and investor
relations to a third party.9

9 During prosecution, the Examining Attorney at one point refused registration of Applicant’s
mark on the ground that the identified financial information and shareholder and investor
relations services are not registrable because they are “merely incidental or necessary to an
applicant’s larger business.” April 23, 2018 Office Action TSDR 2. The Examining Attorney
withdrew this refusal without substantive explanation. November 20, 2018 Office Action
TSDR 2.
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

25
As Applicant argued in claiming that its financial information and shareholder
and investor relations services are registrable:
Applicant manufactures firearms and recreational
sporting goods products. Applicant also owns eighteen
different recreational sporting brands and renders services
in connection with its management and administration of
those brands. The fact that an activity is ancillary to the
sale of goods does not in itself mean that it is not a
separately registrable service … the services at issue here
are not provided only to Applicant’s shareholders; they are
provided to the broader segments of the public that might
be interested in investing in Applicant, or that might more
broadly be interested in learning about companies in
markets in which Applicant conducts business ….

October 23, 2018 Office Action Response TSDR 12-13. In other words, Applicant
renders its financial information and shareholder and investor relations services to
segments of the public interested in investing in an American outdoor brands
corporation. Thus, AMERICAN OUTDOOR BRANDS CORPORATION is primarily
geographically descriptive.
Finally, the question here is whether the term is primarily geographically
descriptive. As shown above, it is, because the primary significance of AMERICAN is
a place generally known to the American public, which is where Applicant provides
its financial information and shareholder and investor relations services. The term
AMERICAN is just as geographically descriptive for those services as for Applicant’s
core outdoor products and services.
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

26
b. The Remaining Goods and Services
The literal element of Applicant’s mark describes not only the provider of
Applicant’s remaining goods and services, but those goods and services themselves,
because they are outdoor-focused. Specifically, the identifications of goods and
services in the remaining 10 involved applications all fall into one or more of three
general categories:
FIREARMS CAMPING AND
ACCESSORIES
OUTDOOR SECURITY
Serial Nos.: 87305135,
85305137, 87305164,
87305165, 87305166,
87305167, 87305169
(Class 35)

Serial Nos.: 87305149,
87305160, 87305165

Serial Nos.: 87305165,
87305169 (Class 45),
87305170

The Examining Attorney has established that goods and services falling within
these general categories are known as “OUTDOOR” products and services, and that
various “outdoor brands” offer goods and services in these general categories. In
addition, the Examining Attorney has established that OUTDOOR and OUTDOOR
BRANDS are terms used in connection with specific goods and services identified in
the involved applications. Indeed, the transcript of a Motley Fool video about
Applicant states
on the outdoor products and accessories side, that
includes three different divisions. You have their core
accessories, this includes stuff like what you need to clean
your gun, to repair it, gunsmithing, things like that, if
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

27
you’re not familiar with the space … Then, outdoor
recreation, which is the newest division … is really
targeting things like camping, hiking, fishing,
paddling sports, things along those lines … some of the
brands that operate within this umbrella, like Crimson
Trace and Battenfeld Technologies, Taylor, a bunch of
different cutlery brands and things along those lines….

November 7, 2017 Office Action in ’164 Application TSDR 88-92 (emphasis added).
In addition, the Sportsmans Outdoor Superstore, Reynolds Outdoors and
Defender Outdoors websites reveal that firearms and firearm accessories (identified
in the ’135 and ’137 Applications) are considered “outdoor” products; and the
Mountainside Outdoor, 3CR Outdoor Supply and Outdoor Sportsman websites reveal
that gunsmithing (identified in the ’164 and ’166 Applications), is an “outdoor”
service:

Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

28

Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

29

Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

30

September 27, 2017 Office Action in ’135 Application TSDR 8-16; November 7, 2017
Office Action in ’164 Application TSDR 93-95. Paracord bracelets and metal key
chains (such as those identified in the ’149 Application) are also considered “outdoor”
products. For example:

Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

31

November 14, 2017 Office Action TSDR 64-119. Cloth patches (such as those
identified in the ’160 Application) are “outdoor” products:
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

32

November 7, 2017 Office Action in ’160 Application TSDR 87-97. Security products
and services, including security cameras and alarm monitoring (such as the services
identified in the ’164, ’169 and ’170 Applications), are often provided “outdoors”:

Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

33

Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

34

Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

35

November 7, 2017 Office Action in ’164 Application TSDR 99-122; November 7, 2017
Office Action in ’169 Application TSDR 126-141. Broadcasting and streaming of video
(such as identified in the ’165 and ’167 Applications), is broad enough to encompass
video about the outdoors, such as “outdoor documentaries,” and outdoor-focused
television channels such as Outdoor TV and Outdoor Channel:
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

36

Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

37

November 7, 2017 Office Action in ’165 Application TSDR 107-115. Finally,
association services (such as those identified in the ’169 Application), are provided to
those involved in the outdoor and gun industries:

Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

38

November 7, 2017 Office Action in ’169 Application TSDR 140-147.
In short, because Applicant is an outdoor brands company from the United States
offering outdoor products and services through and under its various outdoor brands,
AMERICAN OUTDOOR BRANDS CORPORATION is primarily geographically
descriptive and must be disclaimed. We have often found analogous terms to be non-
distinctive. See e.g. In re Wm. B. Coleman Co., Inc., 93 USPQ2d 2019 (TTAB 2010)
(ELECTRIC CANDLE COMPANY generic for light bulbs and lighting products
where the applicant and third parties used the term ELECTRIC CANDLE generically
for those products, stating that “even if the proposed mark as a whole is not the literal
name of the goods,” or the name the public would use to describe them, it is
“nonetheless incapable” of distinguishing source, because “the relevant public would
nonetheless understand the term to refer to a company which offers electric candles”);
In re Cell Therapeutics, Inc., 67 USPQ2d 1795 (TTAB 2003) (CELL THERAPEUTICS,
INC. generic for pharmaceutical preparations and laboratory research related to
biochemical signaling pathways because medical doctors and researchers, the
relevant purchasers of the goods and services, would readily understand the term to
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

39
refer to “various goods and services that treat cells …”); In re The Paint Products Co.,
8 USPQ2d 1863, 1866 (TTAB 1988) (PAINT PRODUCTS CO. highly descriptive of
paints and coatings because purchasers “would view those words not as a trademark
but in their ordinary dictionary sense: a company that sells paint products,” and “the
phrase should remain available for applicant’s competitors”).
Here, consumers will view the literal element of Applicant’s mark not as source
identifying, but instead in its ordinary dictionary sense: a United States corporation
consisting of outdoor brands. More specifically, consumers who know which specific
goods or services are identified in the involved applications will understand that
Applicant’s various outdoor hunting, camping, shooting, broadcasting, association
and security products and services are provided by such a corporation. DuoProSS,
103 USPQ2d at 1757 (“The question is not whether someone presented with only the
mark could guess what the goods or services are. Rather, the question is whether
someone who knows what the goods or services are will understand the mark to
convey information about them.”) (quoting In re Tower Tech Inc., 64 USPQ 2d 1314,
1316-17 (TTAB 2002)). The Examining Attorney has established this element of the
test.
2. The Public Would Make a Goods (and Services)/Place
Association
We find that the public would believe that Applicant’s goods and services originate
in America, because: as revealed by the involved applications, Applicant was
organized in Nevada and is based in Massachusetts; Applicant’s website promotes its
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

40
“portfolio of strong American brands;” and Applicant files reports with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), one of which states that it
manufactures its “firearm products at our facilities in Springfield, Massachusetts and
Houlton, Maine.” September 27, 2017 Office Action TSDR 78; March 27, 2018 Office
Action response TSDR 38-40. In re JT Tobacconists, 59 USPQ2d at 1084 (finding a
goods/place association between Applicant’s goods and Minnesota based on the
applicant’s admission that its goods were packaged and shipped from there); In re
Handler Fenton Westerns, Inc., 214 USPQ 848, 850 (TTAB 1982). Obviously, the SEC
report also indicates that Applicant provides its financial information and
shareholder and investor relations services in the United States. This element of the
test is therefore also satisfied.
3. The Source of the Goods and Services is the Geographic Region
Named in the Mark
As indicated, the involved applications and the evidence of record reveals that
Applicant is based in the United States and manufactures goods and provides
services here. September 27, 2017 Office Action TSDR 78; March 27, 2018 Office
Action response TSDR 38-40. The Examining Attorney has therefore established each
element of the test.
4. Applicant Has Not Rebutted the Examining Attorney’s Prima
Facie Case
Applicant’s argument that AMERICAN OUTDOOR BRANDS CORPORATION is
“amorphous, conveying nothing specific” and means something “different for every
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

41
consumer” is not well taken. As we have found, the evidence − including the evidence
establishing that OUTDOOR BRANDS is descriptive of, and commonly used to refer
to, companies which offer products and services of the type identified in the involved
applications – is to the contrary as a matter of fact.
Moreover, the argument is misplaced as a matter of law. Applicant’s argument
calls to mind a similar contention made in In re Patent & Trademark Svcs., Inc., 49
USPQ2d 1537 (TTAB 1998), in which the applicant sought to register PATENT &
TRADEMARK SERVICES, INC. for “legal representation in the area of Intellectual
Property administered by representing others before the Patent and Trademark
Office and the Copyright Office.” There we found essentially the same argument
unpersuasive because the proposed mark “describes significant aspects of applicant’s
services, and the fact that the phrase does not specify exactly which patent and
trademark services applicant offers does not mean that applicant is entitled to
exclusively appropriate the phrase.” Id. at 1539.
Here, we find Applicant’s similar argument unpersuasive for essentially the same
reason – Applicant’s mark need not “specify exactly which” outdoor goods or services
Applicant offers to be found merely descriptive, because all of Applicant’s specifically-
identified goods and services are outdoor-focused and come from America. Similarly,
Applicant’s mark need not describe any particular place in America to be primarily
merely geographically descriptive. See In re American Furniture Warehouse Co., 126
USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (TTAB 2018) (“we find that the primary significance of
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

42
AMERICAN is geographic, the adjective form of AMERICA, a place generally known
to the American public”). Applicant’s mark is broad enough to describe,
geographically and otherwise, all of Applicant’s identified goods and services.
Applicant argues that unlike other geographic terms, the word AMERICAN is
entitled to “special treatment,” citing TMEP § 1210.02(b)(iv) (Oct. 2018). 16
TTABVUE 13-15. While that TMEP section makes clear that if AMERICAN “is used
in a nebulous or suggestive manner, then it is inappropriate to treat” the term as
primarily geographically descriptive, at the same time it restates the law that if
AMERICAN “is used in a way that primarily denotes the United States origin of the
goods or services, then the term is primarily geographically descriptive.”
Here, while Applicant argues that it uses AMERICAN in a “nebulous” manner,
there is no evidence that as used in Applicant’s mark AMERICAN is amorphous, that
it conjures up a sense of freedom or that it “engenders the impression of the red,
white, and blue; of hope … of a dream.” As the Federal Circuit has held, “[a]ttorney
argument is no substitute for evidence.” Zheng Cai, d/b/a Tai Chi Green Tea Inc. v.
Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367 , 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1799 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(quoting Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 424 F.3d 1276, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2005));
In re U.S. Tsubaki, Inc., 109 USPQ2d 2002, 2006 (TTAB 2014) (finding that there
was no proof to support the statements in the record by counsel). See also In re
California Pizza Kitchen, 10 USPQ2d at 1705 (“However, applicant has not submitted
any evidence whatsoever in support of the contention that the public would associate
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

43
‘CALIFORNIA’ with western-style or wood-fire cooking. In the absence of any
evidence of a non-geographical meaning of ‘CALIFORNIA’, we conclude that the
primary (and on this record the only) significance of ‘CALIFORNIA’ is its
geographical significance.”) and In re JT Tobacconists, 59 USPQ2d at 1084 (“There is
simply no support for applicant’s assertion that the primary significance of its mark
[MINNESOTA CIGAR COMPANY] ‘is to suggest a level of excellence in procuring
top quality cigars and cigar related products.’”).10 In fact, here, the evidence of record
reveals that Applicant uses AMERICAN to denote the United States origin of its
outdoor brands.
The cases upon which Applicant relies, discussed in Applicant’s Appeal Brief at
11 TTABVUE 15, are therefore inapposite. Indeed, as the Examining Attorney points
out, in Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. Wolf Bros. & Co., 240 U.S. 251 (1916), the term
AMERICAN in the mark THE AMERICAN GIRL referred not to the geographic
origin of the shoes for which the mark was used, but instead to the GIRL referenced
in the mark, and was therefore found to not be a geographically descriptive term. In
In re Jim Crocket Promotions, Inc., 5 USPQ2d 1455 (TTAB 1987), the term
AMERICAN in THE GREAT AMERICAN BASH is used in a laudatory manner, as

10 Of course, even if Applicant established that AMERICAN means freedom, or the red, white
and blue or the like, as in In re Opryland USA, “these meanings are all so closely connected
to” America “that they do not … obviate that term’s primary geographic sense.” In re
Opryland USA, 1 USPQ2d at 1413.
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

44
part of the commonly-used term “Great American,” and therefore the public would
not “consider that it is intended to, or that it does, primarily describe the geographical
origin of applicant’s services.”11 See also September 27, 2017 Office Action TSDR 28-
42 (evidence of widespread third party use of the term GREAT AMERICAN, for
example in “great American novel” and “great American smokeout”). Here, by
contrast, there is no evidence that the term AMERICAN in Applicant’s mark is part
of a unitary term or that it refers to anything other than the geographic location
where Applicant’s goods and services originate.
5. Conclusion Regarding Geographic Descriptiveness
Other American outdoor brands or outdoor brand companies that compete with
Applicant have a “legitimate interest … in truthfully being able to use [the geographic
term “American outdoor brands corporation”] to inform the public of the origin of their
similar products” and services. In re Cambridge Digital Sys., 1 USPQ2d 1659, 1662
(TTAB 1986). See also In re MCO Properties, Inc., 38 USPQ2d 1154, 1156 (TTAB
1995) (“The purpose of the proscription in Section 2(e)(2) of the Act against
registration of primarily geographically descriptive terms is to leave place names free
for all businesses operating in particular areas to inform customers where the goods

11 In re Olejar, 2016 BL 289681 (TTAB 2016) is non-precedential. In any event, in that case
the Board found the term AMERICAN in AMERICAN BARRISTER to be part of a unitary,
incongruous phrase that did not describe the geographic origin of the services. Barristers are
lawyers in England or Wales who perform their services only there, so “consumers will likely
perceive ‘American’ to refer primarily to a personal characteristic rather than to the
geographic location per se.”
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

45
or services originate.”). The refusal to register and requirements for disclaimers of
AMERICAN OUTDOOR BRANDS CORPORATION in Applicant’s Group II
applications are affirmed.
IV. Acquired Distinctiveness
Applicant argues in the alternative that the literal element of its mark is entitled
to registration under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act because it “has become
distinctive.” In other words, Applicant argues, “in the minds of the public, the primary
significance of [the term] is to identify the source” of Applicant’s goods and services.
15 U.S.C. § 1052(f); Royal Crown Co. v. The Coca-Cola Co., 892 F.3d 1358, 127
USPQ2d 1041, 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). Applicant bears the burden
of establishing acquired distinctiveness. In re La. Fish Fry Prods., Ltd., 797 F.3d
1332, 116 USPQ2d 1262, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
“Where a mark sits on a sliding scale of descriptiveness impacts the burden a
proposed registrant must bear with respect to its claim of acquired distinctiveness.”
Royal Crown, 127 USPQ2d at 1045. Indeed, “the applicant’s burden of showing
acquired distinctiveness increases with the level of descriptiveness; a more
descriptive term requires more evidence of secondary meaning.” In re
Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1424 (citing In re Bongrain
Intern. (Am.) Corp., 894 F.2d 1316, 13 USPQ2d 1727 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Therefore, we
“must first determine whether the proposed mark is highly descriptive rather than
merely descriptive.” Royal Crown, 127 USPQ2d at 1045.
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

46
Here, based on the evidence of record, and as discussed above, AMERICAN
OUTDOOR BRANDS CORPORATION is highly geographically descriptive, as it
identifies the geographic origin of the goods and services offered by Applicant’s
outdoor brands. Indeed, Applicant is a United States company comprised of outdoor
brands. Because the literal element of Applicant’s mark is so highly geographically
descriptive, Applicant’s burden to show acquired distinctiveness is “concomitantly
high.” In re Steelbuilding, 75 USPQ2d at 1424.
In assessing whether Applicant has met its heavy burden of establishing acquired
distinctiveness, we consider any evidence bearing on: “(1) association of the
trade[mark] with a particular source by actual purchasers (typically measured by
customer surveys); (2) length, degree, and exclusivity of use; (3) amount and manner
of advertising; (4) amount of sales and number of customers; (5) intentional copying;
and (6) unsolicited media coverage of the product embodying the mark.” In re
Snowizard, Inc., 129 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (TTAB 2018) (quoting Converse, Inc. v. Int'l
Trade Comm'n, 907 F.3d 1361, 128 USPQ2d 1538, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Trademark
Rule 2.41(a), 37 C.F.R. § 2.41(a).
Applicant’s evidence of acquired distinctiveness is substantively sparse. It consists
of the Declaration of Elizabeth A. Sharp, its Vice President of Investor Relations, who
testifies that Applicant’s involved mark “has acquired distinctiveness for financial
information services and for shareholder and investor relations services.” May 20,
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

47
2019 Request for Reconsideration TSDR 62-63 (Sharp Dec. ¶ 3). More specifically,
Applicant relies on:
Ms. Sharp’s testimony that Applicant’s mark is “well
known among the consuming and investing public” for
financial information and shareholder and investor
relations services, and that Applicant has used its mark
since January 1, 2017 “to identify and promote the
company, its corporate identity, its financial information,
and its shareholder and investor relations services.” Id.
(Sharp Dec. ¶¶ 3-4, 7).

Applicant has invested “more than $450,000 to advertise,
promote, and develop” Applicant’s brand and mark and
associate it with Applicant, “and its corporate identity, its
financial information, and its shareholder and investor
relations services.” Id. (Sharp Dec. ¶ 5).

“Between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018,
[Applicant’s] revenue exceeded $600 million.” Id. (Sharp
Dec. ¶ 6).

Several news articles, including in the Chicago Tribune,
Forbes, NPR’s website, San Diego Union-Tribune, USA
Today and Wall Street Journal reporting on Applicant’s
name change to AMERICAN OUTDOOR BRANDS
CORPORATION. March 27, 2018 Office Action response
TSDR 32-53.

Additional news articles about: the performance of
Applicant’s publicly traded stock (GV Times); Applicant’s
diversification strategy (Seeking Alpha); and Applicant’s
acquisition of laser sight and laser training company
LaserLyte (MassLive and Zacks). May 20, 2019 Request for
Reconsideration TSDR 12-25.

Evidence that there have been a large number of unique
visitors to Applicant’s website between January 2018 and
April 2019. Id. at 27-56.

Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

48
The evidence is not sufficient to meet Applicant’s heavy burden.
Turning first to the financial information and shareholder and investor relations
services identified in the ’558 and ’588 Applications, as the Examining Attorney
points out, the articles about Applicant’s name change are news articles from 2017.
They reported on Applicant’s name change very shortly after it occurred. Therefore,
they obviously do not indicate that the AMERICAN OUTDOOR BRANDS
CORPORATION name, just recently adopted, had acquired distinctiveness when the
articles were written. Additionally, because the articles are static, they are not
evidence of the term’s acquisition of distinctiveness since that time.
The more recent 2019 articles about Applicant’s stock performance, diversification
and a specific acquisition reveal that Applicant has been active since 2017, including
in investing and expanding, but they do not show that the term in question has
become distinctive for Applicant’s financial information and shareholder and investor
relations services. In fact, none of the articles provide any indication that Applicant
itself even provides financial information as a service, or that it provides shareholder
or investor relations as a service, much less that consumers recognize AMERICAN
OUTDOOR BRANDS CORPORATION as identifying these types of services. Ms.
Sharp’s testimony sheds no light on which specific financial information or
shareholder and investor relations services Applicant provides, to whom they are
provided, or, more to the point, whether or the extent to which consumers recognize
the literal component of Applicant’s mark as identifying the source of those services.
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

49
Similarly, while Applicant’s sales and advertising figures are significant, they are
not tied in any way to the identified financial information and shareholder and
investor relations services. To the contrary, there is no indication in the record that
any of the claimed revenue came from financial information or shareholder and
investor relations services, or that Applicant has ever advertised those services.
Rather, the record merely indicates that Applicant sells outdoor products and
services, offered by its various outdoor brands. Applicant’s failure to specify the
portions of its revenue derived from, or advertising related to, financial information
and shareholder and investor relations services specifically renders Applicant’s
revenue and advertising evidence impotent to establish acquired distinctiveness for
these services.12
The evidence that Applicant’s website draws many visitors is unhelpful for the
same reason − there is no indication whether Applicant’s website even offers or
promotes its financial information and shareholder and investor relations services,
much less evidence that consumers associate the literal element of Applicant’s mark
with these services.13 In fact, there is no indication which specific pages were visited,

12 Applicant’s limited evidence and cursory explanation of its advertising expenses fails to
comply with Trademark Rule 2.41(a)(3) (evidence of acquired distinctiveness should show
duration, extent, and nature of the trademark use), including because Applicant did not
identify the “types of media” in which Applicant advertised, or attach “typical
advertisements.”
13 The record establishes that Applicant is a holding company, which owns a number of
brands, and that many of Applicant’s goods and services are sold under those various brands,
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

50
whether financial information or shareholder and investor relations services (or for
that matter any outdoor-focused products or services) were displayed on those pages
or even whether or how the pages displayed AMERICAN OUTDOOR BRANDS
CORPORATION, much less whether visitors associate the literal portion of
Applicant’s mark with the source of Applicant’s identified outdoor goods and
services.14

which are completely different than AMERICAN OUTDOOR BRANDS CORPORATION or
. For example, the Chicago Tribune article about Applicant’s name change states
that the “change only affects the holding company, not the brand name of its guns,” which
will remain SMITH & WESSON. March 27, 2018 Office Action response TSDR 38; see also
id. at 47-48 (Wall Street Journal article stating “Next month, the nation’s largest gun maker
will ask shareholders to approve changing the name of its holding company to American
Outdoor Brands Corp., though it will continue to use Smith & Wesson for its best-selling
handguns.”) and 57 (Head Down News article stating “The S&W name will remain on all of
their guns, so it’s not like they’re changing that.”). Applicant introduced a Seeking Alpha
article focusing on Applicant, “the owner of the iconic brand Smith & Wesson and newer
noted brands such as Crimson Trace, Thompson Center, and Bubba Blade.” May 20,
2019 Request for Reconsideration TSDR 17 (emphasis added). Applicant also introduced a
MassLive article about Applicant’s acquisition of LaserLyte, which quotes the president of
the “Electro-Optics Division of American Outdoor Brands and Crimson Trace
Corp.” as saying “We are excited to add the LaserLyte brand and product lines to our
existing lineup of Crimson Trace laser sights, tactical lights, and optics.” Id. at 21-
22 (emphasis added). Finally, in its Appeal Brief, Applicant states that it “sought a new name
and identity that invoked both the spirit of its historical roots and its adventure-seeking
consumers, and that was autonomous from each individual brand.” 11 TTABVUE 12
(emphasis added).
14 Applicant claims in its Appeal Brief, without supporting evidence, that an individual
registered the domain names “americanoutdoorbrands.org” and
“americanoutdoorbrands.net” one day after Applicant announced its adoption of the name
AMERICAN OUTDOOR BRANDS CORPORATION. The individual allegedly attempted to
sell the names to Applicant, following which Applicant filed a complaint under the Uniform
Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. “Shortly after the complaint was filed, the infringer
transferred the domain names to” Applicant. 11 TTABVUE 20-21. Even if Applicant
supported this allegation with evidence, it would not weigh in favor of finding acquired
distinctiveness. As Applicant indicates, the individual registered the names one day after
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

51
Turning next to the remaining Group II applications for Applicant’s outdoor-
focused products and services, each of these applications is based on an intent to use
the mark in commerce rather than actual use. Typically, as Applicant itself points
out, “an intent-to-use applicant cannot rely on acquired distinctiveness as a basis for
registration because acquired distinctiveness presumes that the public has had an
opportunity to encounter the mark on products or services sold in interstate
commerce.” 11 TTABVUE 17 (Applicant’s Appeal Brief at 16); see also In re Olin
Corp., 124 USPQ2d 1327, 1333 (TTAB 2017) (“A claim of distinctiveness under
Section 2(f) normally is not raised in a Section 1(b) application before the applicant
files an amendment to allege use or a statement of use because a claim of acquired
distinctiveness, by definition, requires prior use.”).
Applicant relies, however, on what it calls an “exception” which allows an intent
to use applicant to establish a prima facie case of acquired distinctiveness “where it
can show that [the] same mark acquired distinctiveness for sufficiently similar or
related goods, and that this acquired distinctiveness will transfer to the goods

Applicant announced it was adopting the literal portion of its involved mark. Obviously, the
name AMERICAN OUTDOOR BRANDS CORPORATION did not acquire distinctiveness in
a single day, and of course there is no evidence so indicating. Rather, the most generous view
of the alleged infringer’s registration of the domain names is that the infringer anticipated
that the names could become valuable, or that they were already valuable based on
anticipated public recognition in the future. But that does not establish acquired
distinctiveness at the time the names were registered, or even at any point in the future,
much less for the specific goods and services identified in the involved applications. Even if
it did, the view of a single individual about the value of the name would not be persuasive.
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

52
specified in the application when the mark is used in connection with them.” In re
Olin, 124 USPQ2d at 1333 (citing, among others, In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating
Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 57 USPQ2d 1807, 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).
This is a difficult showing to make. In fact, “by the very nature of the inquiry,
Section 1(b) applicants face a heavy burden in establishing that their mark will
acquire distinctiveness when use commences. Accordingly, the required showing for
acquired distinctiveness to ‘transfer’ to new products is a rigorous one.” Id. at 1335
(emphasis added). Thus, assuming arguendo that Applicant had established acquired
distinctiveness for its financial information and shareholder and investor relations
services, which it did not, it would also have to make a “rigorous” showing that the
financial information and shareholder and investor relations services are “sufficiently
similar or related” to the goods and services in the remaining intent to use
applications. In re Olin, 124 USPQ2d at 1334; In re Rogers, 53 USPQ2d 1741, 1744
(TTAB 1999) (“applicant must establish, through submission of relevant
evidence rather than mere conjecture, a sufficient relationship between the
goods or services in connection with which the mark has acquired distinctiveness and
the goods or services recited in the intent-to-use application to warrant the conclusion
that the previously created distinctiveness will transfer to the goods or services in the
application upon use”) (emphasis added).
Here, there is no evidence whatsoever that financial information or shareholder
and investor relations services are related in any way to the outdoor-focused products
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

53
and services identified in the involved applications. We perceive no relationship
between Applicant’s various outdoor hunting, camping, shooting, broadcasting,
association and security products and services on the one hand and financial
information or shareholder and investor relations on the other. See generally Bausch
& Lomb Inc. v. Leupold & Stevens Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1475, 1478 (TTAB 1988)
(“Applicant’s almost total reliance on the distinctiveness which its gold ring device
has achieved vis-à-vis rifle scopes and handgun scopes is simply not sufficient by itself
to establish that the same gold ring device has become distinctive vis-à-vis binoculars
and spotting scopes.”). Therefore, Applicant has not established that any acquired
distinctiveness of the literal portion of its involved mark for any goods or services will
transfer to Applicant’s new outdoor-focused goods and services which are the subject
of its intent to use applications.
In short, Applicant has not met its heavy burden of establishing acquired
distinctiveness.
V. Conclusion
The term AMERICAN OUTDOOR BRANDS CORPORATION is primarily
geographically descriptive of Applicant as the provider of Applicant’s goods and
services, and the goods and services themselves. Applicant has not established its
alternative claim that the term has acquired distinctiveness. Accordingly,
registration of the standard character mark AMERICAN OUTDOOR BRANDS
CORPORATION in the ’558 Application is refused, and registration of the remaining
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

54
Group II applications also is refused, unless Applicant provides a disclaimer of the
literal portion of its mark in those applications.

Decision: The refusal to register application Serial No. 8722558 is affirmed. The
refusals to register application Serial Nos. 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149,
87305160, 87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170
absent a disclaimer of the literal portion Applicant’s mark are also affirmed.
However, if Applicant submits a disclaimer of “AMERICAN OUTDOOR BRANDS
CORPORATION” to the Board within thirty days, the requirements for disclaimers
will have been met and those 11 applications will proceed. Trademark Rule 2.142(g),
37 C.F.R. § 2.142(g); TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MANUAL OF PROCEDURE
(TBMP) § 1218 (2019). The disclaimers should read as follows: “No claim is made to
the exclusive right to use AMERICAN OUTDOOR BRANDS CORPORATION apart
from the mark as shown.”

Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

55
APPENDIX
Serial
No.
Goods Serial
No.
Goods
87228558 Providing financial
information; shareholder and
investor relations and
shareholder services,
namely, providing corporate
financial analysis, providing
investors with financial
information in International
Class 36
87305140 Providing financial
information; shareholder
and investor relations and
shareholder services,
namely, providing corporate
financial analysis,
providing investors with
financial information in
International Class 36
87305135 Protective coatings in the
nature of finishes for
firearms and firearm
accessories; firearm gunstock
refinishing kits comprising
coatings in the nature of
stains and finishes, sealer
coatings, finish remover,
sand paper, filler, and
polishing preparations in
International Class 2
87305137

Cleaning and polishing
preparations for firearms
and firearm accessories;
firearm gunstock sanding
kits comprising sandpaper,
abrasive cloths in the
nature of sanding cloths,
and sanding blocks in
International Class 3
87305149 Bracelets made of paracord
and/or nylon material; nylon
bracelets; metal key chains;
metal key rings in
International Class 14
87305160 Decorative cloth patches in
International Class 26
87305164 Custom gunsmith services,
namely, the custom
modification and repair of
firearms and muzzleloaders;
Installation of security
systems and physical access
control devices in
International Class 37
87305165 Broadcasting of live video
programming over the
internet; streaming of live
video material on the
internet in International
Class 38
87305166 Custom gunsmith services,
namely, custom manufacture
of guns for others; custom
87305167 Entertainment in the
nature of an ongoing news
show featuring news and
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

56
gunsmith services, namely,
the custom manufacture of
firearms and muzzleloaders;
custom injection molding of
plastic services for all major
industries, including
medical, general industrial,
aerospace, communications
and automotive; custom
injection molding of plastic
services for firearm frames
and receivers in
International Class 40
information about firearms
and shooting sports
broadcast over television
and internet; entertainment
in the nature of an ongoing
news show featuring news
and information about
firearms and shooting
sports conferences and
exhibitions broadcast over
television and internet;
entertainment in the nature
of an ongoing news show
featuring interviews with
professional shooters, other
members of the shooting
sports community,
members of the firearms
industry, and members of
the media broadcast over
television and internet;
education services, namely,
instruction in use of
firearms, non-lethal
weapons, breath-testing
equipment, night
surveillance equipment,
and gun safety and
defensive firearms training
for security guard
personnel, and firearms
instructors; Educational
services, namely, providing
courses of instruction in
recreational shooting,
tactical and defensive
firearms training for
civilians and security
professionals in
International Class 41
Serial Nos. 87228558, 87228588, 87305135, 87305137, 87305149, 87305160
87305164, 87305165, 87305166, 87305167, 87305169 and 87305170

57
87305169 Developing and
implementing customized
physical security plans for
improving security and
preventing criminal activity
for businesses and
governmental agencies in
International Class 45

and

Association services, namely,
promoting the interests of
weaponry manufacturers
and retailers through the
dissemination of information
concerning weaponry to the
trade and to the public in
International Class 35
87305170

Security services, namely,
alarm monitoring in
International Class 45