Decisions · 85685983
In re Covalinski
Serial No. 85685983 · Decided 2014-12-18 · Section 2(d) Ex Parte Appeal
What happened
Refusal reversed — the REDNECK RACEGIRL logo may register over RACEGIRL for overlapping clothing because the design’s giant checkerboard double-R dominates the mark and makes the wording hard even to notice.
The marks
Applicant
REDNECK RACEGIRL and design (two large Rs with checkerboard racing flag pattern, heart shapes, colors black/white/gray)
Athletic apparel, namely, shirts, pants, jackets, footwear, hats and caps, athletic uniforms (Class 25)
Cited registration
RACEGIRL (standard characters)
Caps; Jerseys; Leather belts; Short sets; Tops; Shirts; Shorts; Jackets; Blouses; Caps with visors; Crop tops; Hat bands; Hats; Knitted caps; Sweat bands; Sweat pants; Tank tops; Visors (Class 25)
How the marks compared
| Dimension | Finding | What the Board said |
|---|---|---|
| appearance | Dissimilar | The large double-R configuration with checkerboard racing-flag pattern and hearts dominates; the literal element is hard to notice. |
| commercial impression | Dissimilar | The design features, not the shared wording, drive the applicant’s commercial impression. |
The overall commercial impressions differ because the design elements dominate the applicant’s mark and the shared wording is difficult to perceive.
du Pont factors that bore on the outcome
| # | Factor | Weight | What the Board found |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Similarity of the marks | Dispositive — Favored Applicant | The design so dominates that the marks convey different overall impressions despite the shared RACEGIRL wording. |
| 2 | Relatedness of the goods or services | Favored Refusal | The athletic apparel is in-part legally identical to the registrant’s clothing. |
| 3 | Similarity of trade channels | Favored Refusal | For in-part identical goods, the channels and purchasers are presumed the same. |
Why this decision is significant
Frequently cited precedential reversal rejecting any rule that words always dominate composite marks: the giant double-R checkerboard design of REDNECK RACEGIRL overwhelms the wording, avoiding confusion with RACEGIRL even for in-part identical clothing.
Research significance is Trademark Valet's editorial rating of how useful a decision is to practitioners. It is not a statement of precedential weight — that is the separate Precedential field, which comes from the Board.
Related decisions
In re i.am.symbolic, llc
The Board refused registration of #WILLPOWER, the clothing mark of will.i.am’s company, finding it likely to be confused with a registered mountain-logo mark featuring WILLPOWER WEAR and…
85916778 · 2018-08-16 · #WILLPOWER v. WILLPOWER WEAR Have the will... (stylized wording with design of two offset, identical mountain peaks)
Refusal affirmed
In re Lasertec Corporation
Because Lasertec’s GALOIS mark for semiconductor wafer inspection machines is identical to the registered GALOIS mark for cameras and scanners, and the evidence showed those products work…
79358845 · 2026-03-16 · GALOIS v. GALOIS
Refusal affirmed
In re Robert Sulic
The Board found Robert Sulic’s BLACK SWAN vodka mark identical to the registered BLACK SWAN mark for wines, and because vodka and wine are related drinks sold through overlapping channels…
79375327 · 2026-01-07 · BLACK SWAN v. BLACK SWAN
Refusal affirmed
In re Robert Sulic
The Board found Robert Sulic’s BLACK SWAN VODKA label (castle, mountains, and swan design) confusingly similar to the registered BLACK SWAN mark for wines; the swan picture just reinforces…
79375609 · 2026-01-07 · BLACK SWAN VODKA & design v. BLACK SWAN
The original record
Read the opinion and every filing on the Board's own docket. The summary above is our paraphrase, not a quotation from the opinion. The opinion is the authority.
Who checked this
Not yet reviewed by an attorney. This summary is generated from coded data, and it says so until a lawyer has read it.
Provenance — Generated from database rows without re-reading the opinion.
General information about how trademark law works. It is not legal advice about your situation, and reading it does not make anyone your lawyer.