## Facts

- Debbie Sauer applied to register the mark **BO BALL** for an **oblong-shaped white leather ball with red stitching** designed to suggest a combination of a football and a baseball.
- At the time, Bo Jackson was a nationally known professional athlete who played **both professional football and professional baseball**.
- Jackson was widely identified by the nickname **“Bo,”** frequently used by media and the public without his surname in sports-related contexts.
- Sauer argued “Bo” was not uniquely associated with Bo Jackson because other public figures used “Bo” as a given name.
- The USPTO examining attorney refused registration under **Lanham Act § 2(a)** on the ground that BO BALL **may falsely suggest a connection** with Bo Jackson.
- Sauer appealed the refusal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB).

## Issues

1. Whether **BO BALL**, used for a product evoking both football and baseball, **may falsely suggest a connection** with Bo Jackson under **Lanham Act § 2(a)**.
2. Whether “Bo,” in the context of the mark and goods, **points uniquely and unmistakably** to Bo Jackson despite other individuals also being called “Bo.”
3. Whether Bo Jackson’s fame is such that purchasers would **presume a connection** between him and the applicant’s goods absent authorization.

## Decision

- The TTAB **affirmed the examining attorney’s refusal** to register BO BALL under **§ 2(a)**.
- The Board found “Bo” was a **close approximation** of Bo Jackson’s identity as understood by the relevant public.
- Considering the **dual-sport design** of the ball, purchasers would recognize BO BALL as referring **specifically to Bo Jackson**, satisfying the “uniquely and unmistakably” requirement in context.
- There was **no relationship, sponsorship, or authorization** connecting Bo Jackson to Sauer’s goods.
- Given Jackson’s **public recognition** and association with both sports, use of the mark on the identified goods would cause consumers to **assume a connection** with him.

## Legal Principles

- A mark is unregistrable under **Lanham Act § 2(a)** if it **falsely suggests a connection** with a particular person.
- The false-suggestion analysis focuses on whether the designation is the same as, or a **close approximation of**, a person’s identity and whether it **points uniquely and unmistakably** to that person in the context of the goods.
- Lack of any **actual connection or consent** from the person whose identity is invoked supports refusal under § 2(a).
- **Fame or reputation** can make it likely that purchasers will presume a connection between the person and the applicant’s goods when the mark is used in the marketplace.

## Conclusion

The TTAB refused registration of BO BALL because, when used on a ball designed to evoke both football and baseball, the mark would be understood as referencing Bo Jackson’s well-known nickname and dual-sport fame, implying an unauthorized association barred by Lanham Act § 2(a).


In re Sauer, 27 U.S.P.Q.2d 1073 (T.T.A.B. 1993)