## Facts

- The Greyhound Corporation owned and used a well-known running greyhound dog design mark in connection with transportation services and various licensed merchandise, and alleged use in connection with clothing, including shirts.
- Both Worlds, Inc. applied to register a dog design for use on polo shirts and T-shirts.
- Both Worlds admitted its applied-for mark depicted a dog in the act of defecating and admitted Greyhound had superior rights in the image of a running greyhound dog.
- Greyhound opposed registration, asserting (i) likelihood of confusion under Lanham Act § 2(d) and (ii) refusal under Lanham Act § 2(a) for scandalous matter and for disparagement/false suggestion/bringing Greyhound into disrepute.
- Greyhound moved for summary judgment; Both Worlds filed a motion treated as a cross-motion for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether Both Worlds’ defecating-dog design for shirts was likely to cause confusion with Greyhound’s running greyhound design under Lanham Act § 2(d).
2. Whether the applied-for design, as used on publicly worn shirts, consisted of or comprised scandalous matter barred by Lanham Act § 2(a).
3. Whether the applied-for design may disparage Greyhound, falsely suggest a connection with Greyhound, or bring Greyhound into contempt, ridicule, or disrepute under Lanham Act § 2(a).

## Decision

- The TTAB rejected Greyhound’s § 2(d) likelihood-of-confusion ground.
- The TTAB sustained the opposition under § 2(a) on the ground that the defecating-dog depiction on shirts constituted scandalous matter.
- The TTAB also sustained the opposition under § 2(a) on the ground that the design may disparage Greyhound and bring Greyhound into disrepute.
- Registration of Both Worlds’ mark for shirts was refused.

## Legal Principles

- Likelihood of confusion under § 2(d) turns on overall commercial impression; where the applied-for matter is an obvious mocking depiction, consumers may be unlikely to believe it originates from the targeted brand owner.
- A mark may be refused as scandalous under § 2(a) when, considering contemporary attitudes and the goods’ context, a substantial composite of the general public would view the matter as vulgar or offensive.
- Under § 2(a), a mark may be refused if it may disparage an identifiable person or entity, or bring that person or entity into contempt, ridicule, or disrepute, based on the mark’s likely meaning in context and its derogatory impact.
- § 2(a) bars can apply independently of § 2(d); a mark may be refused even absent a showing of source confusion.

## Conclusion

The TTAB refused registration of a defecating-dog design for shirts because, in context, it was scandalous and could disparage and harm the reputation of Greyhound by associating Greyhound’s well-known dog symbol with excrement, even though the Board found no likely consumer confusion as to source.


Greyhound Corp. v. Both Worlds, Inc., 6 U.S.P.Q.2d 1635 (T.T.A.B. 1988)