Decisions · 86185623
In re Fantasia Distribution, Inc.
Serial No. 86185623 · Decided 2016-09-21 · Other
What happened
Registration refused — the Board found that a repeating diamond pattern on electronic hookahs is merely ornamental and does not function as a trademark, and Fantasia Distribution’s evidence was insufficient to prove consumers recognize the pattern as indicating the source of the goods.
The marks
Applicant
Repeating diamond pattern (rows of diamonds on lower third of e-hookah cylinder)
Electronic hookahs (Class 34)
Other issues decided
Not du Pont factors. These are separate grounds the Board reached in this case.
| Issue | Weight | What the Board found |
|---|---|---|
| Acquired Distinctiveness (Section 2(f)) | Favored Opposer | Applicant’s evidence — advertisements, a YouTube review excerpt, and third-party copying — fell short of establishing that consumers perceive the diamond pattern alone as a source indicator. |
| Seabrook Factor: Commercial Impression | Significant | The diamond pattern blends with the product’s other wording and design elements without making a distinct commercial impression as a separate source identifier. |
| Seabrook Factor: Industry Practice | Significant | The Board found that decorative elements placed at the end of electronic hookahs are common in the industry, as shown by three competing brands using similar decorative designs in the same location. |
| Seabrook Factor: Nature and Commonality of Pattern | Dispositive | The diamond pattern uses a common geometric shape repeated in unremarkable rows and columns, varying only in gradually increasing diamond size — insufficient to create source-indicating significance. |
Why this decision is significant
Precedential decision establishing framework for analyzing repeating pattern marks under adapted Seabrook Foods factors. Provides detailed guidance on inherent distinctiveness and acquired distinctiveness standards for ornamental repeating patterns, an area with limited precedent.
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 National Concessions Group, Inc.
The Board refused BAKKED for an ‘essential oil dispenser’ because the product is actually a cannabis dabbing tool — federal drug-paraphernalia law makes it unlawful in commerce, and…
87168058 · 2023-05-03 · BAKKED (standard characters)
In re National Concessions Group, Inc.
The Board refused the teardrop logo used on the same cannabis dabbing tool as the BAKKED word mark: because the product is federal drug paraphernalia, no federal trademark registration is…
87183434 · 2023-05-03 · Stylized drop design mark -- "The mark consists of two parallel curved lines forming a teardrop, being wrapped around a smaller solid teardrop." Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark.
In re Erik Brunetti
The Board affirmed the refusal to register FUCK (standard characters) for cell phone and laptop carrying cases, eyewear cases, spectacles and sunglasses, finding the word is such a…
88308426 · 2022-08-22 · FUCK (standard characters)
In re Erik Brunetti
The Board affirmed the refusal to register FUCK (standard characters) for jewelry, earrings, rings, bracelets, lapel pins, watches and watch accessories, finding that widespread third-party…
88308434 · 2022-08-22 · FUCK (standard characters)
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 — Written from the opinion; research-significance tier confirmed.
General information about how trademark law works. It is not legal advice about your situation, and reading it does not make anyone your lawyer.