1971) The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (before it was replaced by the Federal Circuit) affirmed the decision of the United States Trademark Office to refuse registration of LITTLE MISS AMERICA.

However, whereas the pageant didn’t settle on its name until 1935 (it was previously the NATIONAL BEAUTY TOURNAMENT and the SHOWMEN’S VARIETY JUBILLEE OF ATLANTIC CITY), the clothing company had been marketing MISS AMERICA bras since 1926. The MISS AMERICA pageant, which was founded in 1921, opposed a clothing company’s application to register MISS AMERICA for lingerie. Miss America Brassiere Company (TTAB 1969).

The Second Circuit held that it was proper to preliminarily enjoin the defendant from using MISS U.S.A.-WORLD, but that it was improper to enjoin the defendant’s use of the alternative MISS WORLD-U.S.A the Court found that the latter mark - but not the former - was dominated by the distinguishing major element: “WORLD.” affiliate of the London-based MISS WORLD competition. pageant, which was part of the MISS UNIVERSE network, and the defendant, a U.S. The Second Circuit defined the parameters of the beauty pageant trademark litigation genre by issuing a split decision in a dispute between the plaintiff, the MISS U.S.A. We were curious about the history of beauty pageant naming litigation, so we decided to gather together in one place the disputes that resulted in a written dispositive opinion (let us know if you think we missed any): When you combine this relatively narrow taxonomy with a crowded field of competitors, many of whom own multiple pageants and multiple pageant marks, you are bound to get litigation. Most pageants identify themselves with the traditional naming convention of an honorific (Mr., Miss, etc.) followed by one or two additional words delineating the pageant’s geographic scope and/or subject matter (such as the ethnicity or wardrobe of the contestants). LATINA pageant, who alleged that their former Texas affiliate had gone rogue and started using the MISS LATINA TEXAS mark for unauthorized activities.ĭisputes over beauty pageant names appear to be relatively frequent. Ramirez, the Southern District of California granted a default judgment to the organizers of the MISS U.S.

Meanwhile, in Organizacion Miss America Latina v. Miss G-String International LLC, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) dismissed an opposition to the registration of MISS G-STRING INTERNATIONAL because the opposer’s mark (MISS NUDE INTERNATIONAL) just wasn’t similar enough to cause confusion. Just this month, two disputes over the trademark rights to beauty pageant names were resolved, pending appeal.

Beauty nudist miss junior nude pageant