## Facts

- MC MC S.r.l., an Italian company, applied to register the mark MARIA CALLAS for various goods, including jewelry and related products.
- Maria Callas was a world-famous opera singer who died in 1977.
- The USPTO Examining Attorney refused registration under Lanham Act § 2(a), alleging the mark falsely suggested a connection with Maria Callas.
- The record contained extensive, contradictory evidence concerning whether any heirs, estate, or other successors existed with enforceable rights in the name or persona “Maria Callas.”
- The applicant argued that any publicity or proprietary rights in the name ended at death and that no successors existed to assert rights.
- The refusal was made final and appealed to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

## Issues

1. Whether MARIA CALLAS falsely suggests a connection with the deceased singer under Lanham Act § 2(a) when the existence of any heirs, estate, or other rights-holder is not established.
2. Whether the USPTO bears the burden to prove a current person or entity exists with legally cognizable rights in a deceased individual’s name for a § 2(a) refusal.
3. Whether doubts about the existence of such successors must be resolved in favor of the applicant.

## Decision

- The TTAB reversed the § 2(a) refusal.
- The Board held the USPTO did not establish that any natural person, estate, or juristic entity currently existed with enforceable rights in the name/persona “Maria Callas.”
- Given the conflicting and inconclusive evidence on heirs or successors, the USPTO failed to carry its burden to sustain a false-connection refusal.

## Legal Principles

- Section 2(a)’s “persons, living or dead” can include deceased individuals, but the false-suggestion bar may not apply after death if no one remains entitled to assert a proprietary or privacy-based right.
- For a deceased individual’s name that uniquely points to that person, § 2(a) protection depends on the existence of a current rights-holder (a natural person, estate, or other entity) entitled to assert those rights.
- The USPTO bears the burden to prove the elements of a § 2(a) false-connection refusal, including the existence of a current rights-holder.
- Any doubt about whether heirs or other successors exist with enforceable rights in the name/persona must be resolved in favor of the applicant.

## Conclusion

The TTAB allowed the application to proceed because the USPTO did not prove that any existing heirs, estate, or other entity held enforceable rights in “Maria Callas,” and uncertainty about post-mortem rights could not support a § 2(a) false-connection refusal.


In re MC MC S.r.l., 88 U.S.P.Q.2d 1378 (T.T.A.B. 2008)