## Facts

- Budge Manufacturing Co., Inc. applied to register the trademark “LOVEE LAMB” for “automotive seat covers.”
- The seat covers were made wholly from synthetic fibers and were described in some materials as “simulated sheepskin.”
- The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board refused registration under Lanham Act § 2(a), finding “LAMB” deceptive because it suggested the goods were made of lamb or lambskin.
- Budge argued that labeling and advertising disclosed the synthetic nature of the goods and that an amendment identifying the goods as “simulated sheepskin” eliminated any deception.
- Budge appealed the final refusal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether “LOVEE LAMB,” used for automotive seat covers made entirely of synthetic fibers, comprises “deceptive matter” barred from registration under Lanham Act § 2(a).
2. Whether the TTAB applied the correct legal standard for deceptiveness under § 2(a), including whether use of the three-part test was proper.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB’s refusal to register the mark.
- The court held that “LAMB” in “LOVEE LAMB,” as applied to synthetic seat covers, is deceptive under § 2(a).
- Applying the three-part test, the court found:
  - the term “LAMB” misdescribes the goods’ composition;
  - consumers are likely to believe the misdescription because genuine lambskin/sheepskin seat covers exist in the marketplace; and
  - the misdescription is material because lambskin is associated with higher quality and higher price than synthetics.
- The court rejected the argument that truthful advertising or labeling can cure deceptiveness for registration purposes because registrability is assessed based on the mark itself.
- The court indicated that intent to deceive is not required to establish deceptiveness under § 2(a).

## Legal Principles

- A mark is unregistrable as “deceptive” under Lanham Act § 2(a) when: (1) it misdescribes the goods; (2) consumers are likely to believe the misdescription; and (3) the misdescription is material to purchasing decisions.
- The § 2(a) bar targets deceptive matter, not mere inapt or incorrect description; misdescription alone is insufficient without likely consumer belief and materiality.
- A showing that the misdescription concerns a valued product attribute (such as material composition affecting price/quality) supports materiality.
- Corrective advertising, labeling, or other context outside the mark does not control the § 2(a) analysis, which evaluates the mark as it would be encountered.
- Applicant good faith or lack of intent does not defeat a finding of deceptiveness under § 2(a).

## Conclusion

The court upheld the refusal to register “LOVEE LAMB” for synthetic automotive seat covers because “LAMB” would likely be taken as a claim of genuine lamb material and that belief would matter to consumers, making the mark deceptive and absolutely barred from registration under § 2(a).


In re Budge Mfg. Co., 857 F.2d 773 (Fed. Cir. 1988)