LAMB-GRS, LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2014

No. 77756492 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2014)

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Oral Hearing: April 30, 2014 Mailed: September 30, 2014

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re LAMB-GRS, LLC
_____

Serial No. 77756492
_____

Jill M. Pietrini and Ryan S. Hilbert of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
for LAMB-GRS, LLC.
Cheryl Clayton,1 Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 102,
Mitchell Front, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Kuhlke, Taylor and Greenbaum,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Taylor, Administrative Trademark Judge:
LAMB-GRS, LLC (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register of
the mark L.A.M.B. (in standard characters) for
[c]lothing, namely, jackets, blazers, dresses, skirts,
sweaters, jeans, scarves, tops, cardigans, camisoles,
shorts, and bustiers; footwear; and headwear in
International Class 25.2

1 Prior to briefing, Mary E. Crawford was the examining attorney responsible for the
application.
2 Application Serial No. 77756492 was filed on June 10, 2009, based upon Applicant’s claim
of first use anywhere and in commerce since at least as early as February 15, 2004.
Serial No. 77756492
- 2 -

At the request of the Examining Attorney, Applicant claimed ownership of U.S.
Registration Nos. 3174447, 3665468, 3673511 and others, more fully set forth, infra.
The Trademark Examining Attorney has finally refused registration of
Applicant’s mark under Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), on
the grounds that Applicant’s mark is deceptive for the identified goods not made of
lamb, and that “Applicant has failed to show non-deceptive consumer perception of
the applied-for mark.”3
Applicant appealed and twice requested reconsideration. After the Examining
Attorney denied the requests for reconsideration, the appeal was resumed. Both
Applicant and the Examining Attorney filed briefs and an oral hearing was held.
We reverse the refusal to register.
I. Applicable Law
In accordance with Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act, registration must be
refused if a mark is deceptive of a feature or an ingredient of the identified goods.
The Office has the initial burden of putting forth a prima facie case that a
trademark falls within the prohibition of Section 2(a). In re AOP LLC, 107 USPQ2d
1644 (TTAB 2013) citing In re Budge, 857 F.2d 773, 8 USPQ2d 1259, 1260 (Fed. Cir.

3 The Examining Attorney’s refusal apparently based on Applicant’s failure to show non-
deceptive consumer perception is superfluous. Such evidence is considered as rebuttal
evidence to the prima facie case and is accordingly subsumed in a finding of deceptiveness
under Section 2(a). See Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (“TMEP”)
§1203.02(f)(ii) (2014).
We note, too, that the Examining Attorney had also refused registration on the grounds
that the applied-for mark is descriptive or, alternatively, deceptively misdescriptive of the
identified goods under Section 2(e)(1) of the Act, but those refusals were withdrawn during
prosecution of the application.

Serial No. 77756492
- 3 -

1988), aff’g 8 USPQ2d 1790 (TTAB 1987). The test for determining whether a mark
is deceptive under Section 2(a) has been articulated in Budge as:
(1) Is the term misdescriptive of the character, quality,
function, composition or use of the goods?
(2) If so, are prospective purchasers likely to believe that
the misdescription actually describes the goods?
(3) If so, is the misdescription likely to affect a significant
portion of the relevant consumers’ decision to purchase
the goods?
In re Budge, 8 USPQ2d at 1260 (LOVEE LAMB held deceptive for seat covers not
made of lambskin). Because Section 2(a) is an absolute bar to the registration of
deceptive matter on either the Principal Register or the Supplemental Register, a
claim that a mark has acquired distinctiveness cannot obviate a Section 2(a)
deceptiveness refusal. See In re Charles S. Loeb Pipes, Inc., 190 USPQ 238, 241
(TTAB 1975); TMEP § 1203.02. Stated another way, a refusal under Trademark
Act Section 2(a) cannot be overcome merely because the mark has enjoyed long
and/or extensive use. However, evidence of use and of recognition by consumers
and the trade can be considered in analyzing the first and second prongs of the
Budge test; that is, such evidence may be considered in determining whether the
mark misdescribes the goods and whether prospective purchasers are likely to
believe that the misdescription actually describes the goods. In re Woolrich Woolen
Mills Inc., 13 USPQ2d 1235 (1989) (WOOLRICH for clothing not made of wool
found not to be deceptive under §2(a), due to consumer and trade recognition of
WOOLRICH as a trademark as a result of applicant’s long and extensive use).

Serial No. 77756492
- 4 -

II. The facts of this case
The record, primarily by way of the declarations with accompanying exhibits of
Lisa Jacobson, Applicant’s “authorized signatory,” show that Applicant’s principal,
Gwen Stefani, is a well-known singer and fashion designer.4 Ms. Stefani is the lead
singer of the rock band No Doubt, which has released numerous albums in over two
decades of performing together. No Doubt has won multiple industry awards
including, among others, Grammy Awards in 2003 and 2004. In 2004, Ms. Stefani
commenced a solo career with the release of her album “LOVE ANGEL MUSIC
BABY,” which sold more than seven million copies worldwide. Also in 2004, Ms.
Stefani launched a clothing and accessory line under the “brand name” L.A.M.B., an
acronym of Ms. Stefani’s debut solo album.5 According to Ms. Jacobson, Applicant
has used the L.A.M.B. mark since February 15, 2005, and the mark has been in
substantially exclusive and continuous use in interstate commerce for Applicant’s
clothing, headwear, and footwear, including the goods listed in the application, for
more than seven years.6 Since its launch in 2004, L.A.M.B. apparel and footwear
has been sold at various times at many major retailers in the United States,

4 Ms. Jacobson captioned her declarations as ones regarding “Acquired Distinctiveness” of
LOVE ANGEL.MUSIC.BABY and L.A.M.B., respectively. As stated, a claim of acquired
distinctiveness does not overcome a deceptiveness refusal. Accordingly, we have considered
Ms. Jacobson’s declarations to the extent that they evidence consumer perception of
Applicant’s mark.
Ms. Jacobson additionally is identified in Applicant’s brief as the Manager of Applicant’s
principal, Gwen Stefani.
5 Applicant’s May 11, 2011 Request to Suspend and Remand, Exh. 1 – Jacobson declaration
¶¶ 3, 7 and 15. Ms. Jacobson additionally indicated that Applicant also uses the trademark
LOVE ANGEL MUSIC BABY on or in connection with its clothing and accessory line.
6 Id at ¶ 3.
Serial No. 77756492
- 5 -

including Barneys New York, Bergdorf Goodman, Saks Fifth Avenue, Nordstrom,
Bloomingdales, Macy’s, Fred Segal/Ron Herman, Intermix, Shopbob and
CuspClothing, and by May 2011 had generated at least $175 million in gross retail
sales, $135 million of which was generated after March, 2009.7 The L.A.M.B.
trademark is displayed on labels affixed to the goods, and has been displayed
prominently on banners at Applicant’s fashion shows.8 The mark has also been
promoted in magazines and at tradeshows, including Fashion Week in New York –
a major fashion event which over 1,000 people attend in the main tent, and millions
view online. The mark also is promoted on Applicant’s websites at and , with both sites receiving high traffic; in 2009
alone the website www.gwenstefani.com received about 400,000 visits.9 Applicant
has expended more than $3 million to advertise and promote its L.A.M.B. mark and
Ms. Stefani has received widespread unsolicited publicity for clothing bearing the
L.A.M.B. mark.10
Applicant has obtained four registrations for the L.A.M.B. mark which are for
clothing items that are similar to those identified in the present application or are
items that may be made from lambskin.11 Registration details follow:12

7 Id. at ¶ 7 and 18.
8 Id. at ¶ 10.
9 Id. at ¶¶ 9-12, Exhs. B - E.
10 Id. at ¶¶ 16 and 17, Exh. F.
11 Applicant owns three additional L.A.M.B registrations for various goods, i.e.,
Registration No. 3418778 for “personal fragrances,” Registration No. 3596455 for “body
lotion, shower gel, and personal fragrances” and Registration No. 3174448 for “charms ”
and Registration No. 3691211 for the mark LOVE ANGEL MUSIC BABY for “Clothing,
Serial No. 77756492
- 6 -

Registration No. Goods/Services
3174447 T-shirts, pants, sweatpants, blouses, tank tops,
vests and shirts
3673511 Buttons for clothing
3820049 Watches and watch bands
3268695 Handbags

III. Analysis

To begin our analysis, we note that for a term to misdescribe goods, it must be
merely descriptive of a significant aspect of the goods which the goods could
plausibly possess but in fact do not. In re Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., 63 USPQ2d
1047, 1051 (TTAB 2002). There is no question that Applicant’s identified clothing
items are not made of lambskin or other products derived from lamb. Indeed,
Applicant affirmatively stated during prosecution that its identified clothing items
“mostly were made of cotton and similar materials.”13 The issue, therefore, is
whether “L.A.M.B.” is misdescriptive of a characteristic or feature of Applicant’s
goods. It is the Examining Attorney’s position that the applied-for mark consists of
the term “lamb” presented as an acronym, and that the term “lamb” in Applicant’s
mark, used with clothing, indicates to a consumer that the goods are made from

namely, shirts, tank tops, pants, shorts, and hooded sweatshirts; headwear, namely, visors,
baseball caps, and hats; footwear.”
11 Applicant’s May 7, 2013 Response.
12 Applicant’s December 21, 2010 and December 27, 2011 Requests for recon., Exhs. E and
F, and Exh. A, respectively; and Applicant’s May 4, 2010 Response, Exh. A.
Applicant also owns U.S. Registration No. 3691211 for the mark LOVE ANGEL MUSIC
BABY for “Clothing, namely, shirts, tank tops, pants, shorts, and hooded sweatshirts;
headwear, namely, visors, baseball caps, and hats; footwear.
13 Applicant’s May 7, 2013 Response.
Serial No. 77756492
- 7 -

lamb and/or lamb products, such as lamb’s wool, lambskin and lamb leather.
According to the Examining Attorney, because Applicant indicated that its products
are made of cotton or similar material, use of the term “lamb” in Applicant’s mark
“deceptively misdescribes” the composition of Applicant’s goods. The Examining
Attorney contends that the use of periods alone is insufficient to overcome the
deceptiveness refusal and explicitly argues that:
Consumers would view and pronounce applicant’s mark
L.A.M.B. as “lamb.” The applicant has not submitted any
evidence that a consumer would pronounce the mark as
an acronym, “L-period-A-period-M-period-B-period.” …
That the mark is presented as an acronym with periods
between the letters does not alter the pronunciation of the
mark as “lamb.” The use of periods alone is insufficient to
overcome the deceptiveness. If periods alone were
sufficient, any deceptive mark could attain trademark
significance simply through the insertion of periods.
Therefore, the first impression of the mark and
pronunciation of the mark “lamb” must control.
Brief unnumbered pp. 5-6. During prosecution, the Examining Attorney also relied
on Tanner’s Council of America, Inc. v. Samsonite Corporation, 204 USPQ 150
(TTAB 1979) in which the Board discussed cases which found that uses of the term
“hide,” or its phonetic equivalent “hyde,” as part of marks used in connection with
material that has the appearance of, but is not, leather fall within the proscription
of Section 2(a), to support her position that the phonetic equivalent of a deceptive
term is also deceptive.
The Examining Attorney has made of record several dictionary definitions, most
of which define “lamb” as follows:

Serial No. 77756492
- 8 -

3. DRESS
Same as lambskin14

definition 1: a young sheep, esp. one not weaned, or its
meat, hide, or fleece.15
Applicant, for its part, maintains that the applied-for mark L.A.M.B. is not
deceptive of the clothing, footwear and headwear sold thereunder because
“consumers will and do perceive Applicant’s L.A.M.B. mark – with periods or “dots”
between the letters – as an acronym with the letters “L”, “A”, “M”, and “B”
representing “LOVE”, “ANGEL”, “MUSIC” and “BABY,” respectively.” Applicant
contends that it has submitted substantial evidence that consumers are used to
seeing and consider Applicant’s L.A.M.B. mark as an acronym and as a brand, and
not as the actual word “lamb.”
Applicant’s evidence includes the following:
1. The declarations of Lisa Jacobson, Applicant’s manager, attesting to, as more
fully set forth, supra., the genesis of the L.A.M.B. clothing line, sales and
advertising figures as well as Applicant’s promotional activities and unsolicited
media attention regarding the L.A.M.B. mark.
2. An excerpt from Wikipedia for the word L.A.M.B.
L.A.M.B. is a fashion line by American singer Gwen
Stefani, the vocalist of the rock band No Doubt and a solo
artist. The line manufactures apparel and fashion
accessories. The line was founded in 2003 but made its
runway debut the following year in 2004. The fashion
line manufactures accessories like shoes, watches, bags

14 Encarta World English Dictionary (www.encarta.msn.com), attachment to December 22,
2009 Office Action.
15 Wordsmyth Educational Dictionary – Thesaurus (www.wordsmyth.net?en1=lamb),
attachment to May 16, 2012 Final Office Action.
We note that Applicant submitted alternate definitions of “lamb” that did not include
references to clothing.
Serial No. 77756492
- 9 -

and a fragrance called “L” as well. The name is an
acronym of her debut solo album Love.Angel.Music.Baby.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.A.M.B.)16

3. An excerpt from the home page of Applicant’s website (www.l-a-m-b.com),
which prominently states at the top: 17

4. Excerpts from unsolicited media sources recognizing Applicant’s mark,
L.A.M.B., as an acronym for LOVE ANGEL MUSIC BABY:
i. An article from the Atlanta Business Chronicle, Headline: “Stefani to
design sexy frock for bars at W Hotels in Buckhead, Midtown”
Byline: J. Scott Trubey dated October 15, 2008

Stefani’s L.A.M.B. clothing label has been commissioned
by nightlife gurus The Gerber Group to design sexy new
uniforms for female servers ….
L.A.M.B., an acronym for Love Angel Music Baby, the
title of one of Stefani’s albums, has produced multiple
outfits for the 15 Gerber Group Living Room lounges.
ii. An excerpt from the Cosmetics International Cosmetic Products Report (May 1, 2008),
Headline: “Rock star Stefani dolls up perfume offering”; World

Last July, Coty launched the first [sic] Gwen Stefani’s
first scent under her LOVE Angel Music Baby (L.A.M.B.)
fashion label.

16 Applicant’s December 27, 2010 Request for Recon. Exh. 1.
17 Applicant’s January 3, 2012 Request for recon. Exh. A.
Serial No. 77756492
- 10 -

iii. An article from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution entitled “Style: All tuned up for the stitch;
Music and Fashion are inextricably intertwined. Who hasn’t attempted to channel the style of a
favorite musician at some point?”
Byline: Nedra Rhone dated February 10, 2008

Stefani is one musician who has embraced the role of
designer. … Since 2003 she has been creative director of
L.A.M.B. (Love Angel Music Baby)….

iv. An article from Business and Industry, Headline: ON THE L.A.M.B. SINGER-DESIGNER
GWEN STEFANI IS STEPPING DEEPER INTO THE SHOE SCENE WITH THE LAUNCH
OF WOMEN’S HEELS
Byline: Clair Windsor dated November 26, 2007

In fact, it is Stefani’s tireless dedication and detail-
minded involvement in her business – not to mention her
strong sense of personal style – that has made L.A.M.B.
(short for “Love. Angel. Music. Baby.”) the huge success it
is ….

v. An article from The Dallas Morning News, Headline: SPRING SHOPPING Up-and-coming
designers, pretty collections. Our guide to what’s in store this season at SIix [sic] of your (and
our) favorite shops
Byline: Jackie Bolin dated March 25, 2007

Gwen Stefani is more than the hottest voice on the radio –
she also heads up one of the cooler contemporary labels
out there. Yes, we’re talking about her L.A.M.B. (Love
Angel Music Baby) line, and it’s new this spring to
Tootsies.
vi. An article from The Tribune Co., Headline: “Wishing on a Star”
Byline: Cloe Cabrera, The Tampa Tribune, dated June 18, 2007

Is it for you? Sure, if you want to dress hip, young and
sexy. These pieces are ultra trendy and may not be
around for more than a season or two, so work it while
you can.
Who: Gwen Stefani, pop star: L.A.M.B. (Love,
Angel, Music, Baby) and Harajuku Lovers
Where to buy: Nordstrom; l-a-m-b.com.
Serial No. 77756492
- 11 -

5. Articles from various media sources, such as, Style.com, The Huffington Post,
stylelist Fashion, WWD.com [Women’s Wear Daily], New York Fashion, The Wall
Street Journal, People and USA Today, among others, discussing the L.A.M.B. Fall
2011 [Fashion Week] Show Coverage, sometimes noting the fabrication of the
collection. Sample articles follow:18

18 Applicant’s May 11, 2011 Request to Suspend and Remand, Exh. E.
Serial No. 77756492
- 12 -

6. Web pages from the websites of various retailers, including shopbop.com,
couturezappos.com, Neiman Marcus, DrJays.com, Nordstrom, Sax Fifth Avenue,
Bloomingdale’s and Macy’s, as well as from Applicant’s website, showing clothing
Serial No. 77756492
- 13 -

and footwear items of the type covered by the L.A.M.B. mark.19

19 Applicant’s January 3, 2012 Request for recon. Exh. A
Serial No. 77756492
- 14 -

Serial No. 77756492
- 15 -

4. Copies of third-party registrations for marks that include the names of
various animals whose skins have been known to be used in connection with
clothing or other products. The registrations include, by way of example:
Registration No. 3924903 for the mark BLACK LAMB for various clothing items
and footwear; Registration No. 3867540 for the mark LITTLE LAMB for various
clothing items; Registration No. 2065912 for the mark SHEEP for various clothing
items and footwear; and Registration No. 2255638 for the mark WILD PIGS for
various clothing items and footwear.
While both Examining Attorneys involved in this proceeding focused their
arguments on the pronunciation of L.A.M.B., it is evident that they also are of the
view that the periods after each letter in Applicant’s L.A.M.B. mark are insufficient
to change the essential and generally understood meaning of the word “lamb.”
Indeed, the periods effectively have been ignored in the Examining Attorneys’
analysis. However, even though the periods may not be pronounced when calling
for the mark, Applicant’s goods are clothing, footwear and headwear items that are
of a type that is generally inspected prior to purchase. As such, this is a situation
where Applicant’s mark will be viewed by prospective purchasers shopping either in
brick and mortar stores or online and the periods are clearly a notable part of the
L.A.M.B. mark.
While we acknowledge that the commercial impression of a mark is usually not
altered by the presence, or absence, of punctuation marks, Cf., In re Vanilla Gorilla
L.P., 80 USPQ2d 1637, 1639-1640 (TTAB 2006) (“the addition of punctuation marks
Serial No. 77756492
- 16 -

to a descriptive term would not ordinarily change the term into a non-descriptive
one”); In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988) (when the same
words are used in marks, the presence or absence of hyphens or other punctuation
marks generally will be of little significance), the record in this case shows that
Applicant’s L.A.M.B. mark is perceived by relevant consumers and the trade as an
acronym that is synonymous with the words “LOVE ANGEL MUSIC BABY.”20 Of
particular note, Applicant’s much visited website immediately informs a visitor that
Applicant’s L.A.M.B. mark is derived from the words LOVE ANGEL MUSIC BABY
and the renown of the L.A.M.B. mark, as reflected in the promotional activities,
sales figures and unsolicited media coverage, reiterates that understanding. We
also point out that the fabrics used in connection with Applicant’s obviously
L.A.M.B. “branded” clothing items are discernable when viewing the items in a
retail store setting or online. We thus find that the consumer perception of the
acronym L.A.M.B. is as a trademark and that the words it represents, LOVE
ANGEL MUSIC BABY, are arbitrary with respect to Applicant’s identified clothing,
headwear and footwear. See Woolrich, 13 USPQ2d 1235. Indeed, although we
appreciate that the Board must decide each case on its facts and record, it is telling
that the trademark significance of Applicant’s L.A.M.B. acronym previously has
been recognized by the USPTO on four separate occasions through the registration

20 Indeed an entry of which we have taken judicial notice from the online Acronym Finder
(www.acronym.finder.com/LAMB.html) states that the acronym L.A.M.B. stands for “Love,
Angel, Music, Baby (fashion line),” and corroborates our finding.
Serial No. 77756492
- 17 -

of four other L.A.M.B marks, all for clothing and other items that could be made
from lamb or lambskin.
We are not persuaded by the Examining Attorney’s argument that “given that it
is common to find shoes and handbags made from lambskin, consumers who are
unfamiliar with ‘LOVE ANGEL MUSIC BABY’ or Gwen Stefani will not made a
connection with the album title or performer upon encountering the mark L.A.M.B.”
Br. unnumbered p. 4. Due to the presence of the periods after each letter in the
mark, “L.A.M.B.” will be recognized as an acronym, even if its precise meaning is
unknown by some.21
We feel compelled to address one additional argument made by the Examining
Attorney. By the statement in her brief that “applicant has failed to submit any
actual consumer evidence to support its contention that the applied for mark will be
perceived as an acronym” she appears to suggest that survey evidence is required to
establish consumer perception of a mark. She cites to, and we are aware of, no
authority that supports that position.
Although we have found that Applicant’s L.A.M.B. mark does not misdescribe
the identified goods, under the Woolrich analysis we address the second prong of the
Budge test for deceptiveness: are prospective purchasers likely to believe that the
misdescription actually describes the goods? The Examining Attorney has made of

21 The Examining Attorney also claims that the “evidence submitted by the applicant also
shows that it is the applicant’s practice to use L.A.M.B. with an image of a lamb” and that
this usage emphasizes or suggests to a consumer the false connection between L.A.M.B. as
an acronym and “lamb” as the material from which clothing is made. Applicant, on the
other hand, disputes this claim and contends that the overwhelming evidence submitted by
it indicates the exact opposite. Because of the conflicting positions and evidence, we find no
persuasive value in the Examining Attorney’s claim.
Serial No. 77756492
- 18 -

record numerous examples of clothing items such as those included in the
identification of goods as being made of lamb, lambskin or lamb leather. Ordinarily,
if “L.A.M.B.” had been found to misdescribe clothing, footwear and headwear items
not made of lamb (or as lamb is defined, lambskin), this evidence would be sufficient
to show that consumers are likely to believe that clothing such as jackets, blazers,
dresses, skirts, sweaters, jeans, scarves, tops, cardigans, camisoles, shorts, and
bustiers, footwear and headwear were made of lamb. However, the situation in this
case differs because, as just explained, Applicant’s evidence of consumer perception
demonstrates that Applicant’s L.A.M.B. mark is a widely recognized acronym with
an arbitrary meaning in relation to the identified goods. Applicant affirmatively
states that its clothing is made of cotton and like materials and media reports
during fashion week as well as the online catalog pages demonstrate this fact.
Further, applicant uses the L.A.M.B. mark to identify all of its clothing, footwear
and headwear items, no matter the fabrication. Under these circumstances, the
perception of prospective purchasers is that L.A.M.B. is a source identifier for all of
Applicant’s clothing, footwear and headwear items and they will not believe that
L.A.M.B. identifies only clothing items that are made of lamb.22
Having found that “L.A.M.B” does not misdescribe the identified goods and that
prospective purchasers are not likely to believe any misdescription with respect to

22 In reaching our conclusion on this prong of the Budge test, we have not relied upon
Applicant’s argument that the word “lamb,” standing alone, is not commonly used to
describe a type of clothing given our findings with regard to the L.A.M.B. mark.
Serial No. 77756492
- 19 -

“L.A.M.B.” in relation to the goods, we need not reach the third prong of the Budge
test.
For the reasons discussed, the Examining Attorney has failed to meet her
burden as to the first and second prongs of the Budge test and, accordingly, has
failed to demonstrate that Applicant’s mark is deceptive when used in connection
with the identified goods.
Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s mark L.A.M.B. under Trademark
Act Section 2(a) is reversed.