`
`
`
`
`
`This Opinion is Not a
`Precedent of the TTAB
`
`Mailed: December 8, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`_____
`
`In re Global Occupational Safety and Health Academy, LLC
`_____
`
`Serial No. 88087696
`_____
`
`Daniel I. Hwang and Michael T. Murphy of Global IP Counselors LLP,
`for Global Occupational Safety and Health Academy, LLC.
`
`Brittany Johnson, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 126,
`Andrew Lawrence, Managing Attorney.
`
`
`Before Wolfson, Pologeorgis and Coggins,
`Administrative Trademark Judges.
`
`_____
`
`
`Opinion by Wolfson, Administrative Trademark Judge:
`
`Global Occupational Safety and Health Academy, LLC (“Applicant”) seeks
`
`registration on the Principal Register of the mark depicted below for “consulting in
`
`the field of workplace safety” in International Class 45. 1
`
`
`
`
`1 Application Serial No. 88087696 was filed on August 22, 2018, under Section 1(b) of the
`Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), based on Applicant’s allegation of a bona fide intent to
`use the mark in commerce.
`
`

`

`Serial No. 88087696
`
`
`
`The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration of Applicant’s mark
`
`under Section 2(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), on the ground that Applicant’s mark, when
`
`used in connection with Applicant’s services, falsely suggests a connection with the
`
`Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA or “Administration”), a part
`
`of the U.S. Department of Labor (Dept. of Labor). The Examining Attorney also
`
`refused registration under Section 6(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1056(a),
`
`on the ground that the wording in the mark is merely descriptive of the services and
`
`must be disclaimed. The Examining Attorney required the following disclaimer:
`
`No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “GLOBAL
`OSHA” and “GLOBAL OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND
`HEALTH ACADEMY, LLC” apart from the mark as
`shown.
`
`After the Examining Attorney made the refusals final, Applicant appealed to this
`
`Board, filed a request for reconsideration which was denied, and requested and was
`
`granted a remand to amend its application to the Supplemental Register. Following
`
`remand, the Examining Attorney denied Applicant’s request for Supplemental
`
`Register registration and returned the application to the Board.
`
`A. Disclaimer Requirement
`
`
`
`During prosecution, Applicant offered to separately disclaim the terms
`
`OCCUPATIONAL, HEALTH, SAFETY and LLC, but did not agree to the disclaimer
`
`as required by the Examining Attorney. However, in its Brief, Applicant agreed to
`
`the disclaimer as required by the Examining Attorney, clarifying in its Reply brief
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Serial No. 88087696
`
`“that Applicant wishes to disclaim the terms together, as required by the Office.” 17
`
`TTABVUE 3.
`
`Accordingly, the following disclaimer is entered: “No claim is made to the
`
`exclusive right to use GLOBAL OSHA and GLOBAL OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY
`
`AND HEALTH ACADEMY, LLC apart from the mark as shown.”
`
`The refusal under Section 6(a) is now moot.
`
`B. Section 2(a) Refusal: “False Suggestion of a Connection”
`
`
`
`Section 2(a) prohibits registration of “matter which may … falsely suggest a
`
`connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs or national symbols.”
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1052(a). False suggestion of a connection under the Trademark Act
`
`evolved from the rights of privacy and publicity, and was intended to preclude
`
`registration of a mark that conflicts with another’s rights in one’s persona or
`
`identity. Univ. of Notre Dame du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., Inc., 703
`
`F.2d 1372, 217 USPQ 505, 509 (Fed. Cir. 1983), aff’g 213 USPQ 594 (TTAB 1982).
`
`To establish that a proposed mark falsely suggests a connection with a person or an
`
`institution, the following four elements must be shown:
`
`1. The mark is the same as, or a close approximation of, the name or
`identity previously used by another person or institution;
`
`2. The mark would be recognized as such, in that it points uniquely
`and unmistakably to that person or institution;
`
`3. The person or institution named by the mark is not connected with
`the activities performed by the applicant under the mark; and
`
`4. The fame or reputation of the person or institution is such that,
`when the mark is used with the applicant’s goods or services, a
`connection with the person or institution would be presumed.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Serial No. 88087696
`
`Pierce-Arrow Soc’y v. Spintek Filtration, Inc., 2019 USPQ2d 471774, *4 (TTAB 2019)
`
`(PIERCE-ARROW does not falsely suggest a connection with an organization
`
`preserving the heritage of automobiles produced by a defunct car company); see also
`
`Bos. Athletic Ass’n v. Velocity, LLC, 117 USPQ2d 1492, 1495 (TTAB 2015)
`
`(MARATHON MONDAY does not falsely suggest a connection with the Boston
`
`Athletic Association’s BOSTON MARATHON identity); In re Nieves & Nieves LLC,
`
`113 USPQ2d 1629, 1639 (TTAB 2015) (PRINCESS KATE falsely suggests a
`
`connection with Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, also known as “Kate Middleton”);
`
`In re Cotter & Co., 228 USPQ 202, 204 (TTAB 1985) (WESTPOINT falsely suggests
`
`a connection with an institution, namely, the United States Military Academy).
`
`To establish that Applicant’s mark falsely suggests a connection with the
`
`Administration, the Examining Attorney must prove that the term “OSHA” is its
`
`known name or identity; that Applicant’s mark is a close approximation of OSHA,
`
`points uniquely and unmistakably to the Administration, and is being used by
`
`Applicant in association with services that are not connected to the Administration
`
`but would be presumed to be so connected, given the fame of the designation OSHA
`
`as the Administration’s name or identity. We examine each of these factors in turn.
`
`1. Whether the Administration is connected with Applicant’s activities
`performed under its mark?
`
`The type of “connection” contemplated by Section 2(a) is “a commercial
`
`connection, such as an ownership interest or commercial endorsement or
`
`sponsorship of applicant’s services.” In re Sloppy Joe’s Int’l Inc., 43 USPQ2d 1350,
`
`1354 (TTAB 1997). On its website, Applicant disavows any such connection:
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Serial No. 88087696
`
`Global Occupational Safety and Health Academy, LLC is
`not a government agency and is not affiliated with the
`U.S. Department of Labor or the Occupational Safety and
`Health Administration.
`
`Applicant’s April 24, 2020 Request for Remand, Exhibit A, 10 TTABVUE 9.
`
`Moreover, the web pages confirm that Applicant “is not a government agency and
`
`receives no
`
`funding
`
`from the
`
`federal Occupational Safety and Health
`
`Administration.” June 19, 2019 Office Action, TSDR 3. Applicant has not established
`
`a connection with the Dept. of Labor that entitles it to register the involved mark.
`
`2. Whether the fame or reputation of OSHA is such that a connection with
`Administration would be presumed?
`
`The term OSHA is defined in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary as
`
`“Occupational Safety and Health Administration.” Moreover, Applicant promotes its
`
`company as “founded and managed by former senior management staff and safety
`
`experts from the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
`
`Administration’s Directorate of Training and Education” and its mission as “to
`
`provide a framework for developing and delivering high quality occupational safety
`
`and health training to workers around the world ….” April 24, 2020 Request for
`
`Remand, 10 TTABVUE 9-11. “Evidence of such intent would be highly persuasive
`
`that the public will make the intended false association.” In re Sloppy Joe’s, 43
`
`USPQ2d at 1354 (citing Univ. of Notre Dame, 217 USPQ at 509).
`
`Although Applicant has disavowed any relationship with the Dept. of Labor, we
`
`have no doubt that prospective purchasers of Applicant’s services will recognize that
`
`the term OSHA identifies the Administration. See K2 Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc., 192
`
`USPQ 174, 177 (TTAB 1976) (applicant’s “disavowal does not obviate the public’s
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Serial No. 88087696
`
`impression of the intimate relationship which applicant has fostered and established
`
`with the sport and the various manufacturers of skiing equipment, of which group
`
`opposer is a prominent member.”). When OSHA is used as part of the mark
`
` for Applicant’s services, prospective purchasers would
`
`presume a connection between it and the Administration, notwithstanding the much
`
`smaller and subordinately placed wording “Global Occupational Safety and Health
`
`Academy, LLC” which Applicant argues “informs that Applicant is not the
`
`Government.” 14 TTABVUE 12.
`
`3. Whether Applicant’s mark is the same as, or a close approximation of a
`name or identity previously used by the Administration?
`
`There are two prongs to this inquiry. First, we determine whether OSHA is a
`
`name or identity of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration within the
`
`Dept. of Labor. Next, we determine if
`
` is a close
`
`approximation of OSHA.
`
`The Examining Attorney submitted probative evidence that OSHA is a well-
`
`known acronym for the Administration, created by Congress in 1970. See printout
`
`from www.osha.gov, attached to December 10, 2018 Office Action at TSDR 2-3;
`
`Merriam-Webster dictionary definition, id. at 4-7. We find that OSHA is a name or
`
`identity of the Administration.
`
`We next must decide whether Applicant’s mark is a close approximation to
`
`OSHA. The Board has said that “the similarity required for a ‘close approximation’
`
`is akin to that required for a likelihood of confusion under §2(d) and is more than
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Serial No. 88087696
`
`merely ‘intended to refer’ or ‘intended to evoke.’” Pierce-Arrow, 2019 USPQ2d 471774
`
`at *5 (citing Bos. Athletic, 117 USPQ2d at 1497). In other words, Applicant’s mark
`
`must do more than simply bring the Administration’s identity to mind. In this
`
`respect, we find that Applicant’s mark is a close approximation of OSHA. Because
`
`the terms “GLOBAL OSHA” and “GLOBAL OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND
`
`HEALTH ACADEMY, LLC” are merely descriptive of the services and have been
`
`disclaimed, and because “GLOBAL OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
`
`ACADEMY, LLC” is in a much small type size, they are less significant than the
`
`term OSHA in Applicant’s mark, which is the mark’s dominant, salient feature due
`
`to the color, relative size, anchoring position, and design in the “O” which draws the
`
`eye toward the OSHA element. As in the likelihood of confusion context, we may give
`
`more weight to the dominant feature in a mark when determining the commercial
`
`impression created by the mark. Cf. Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp., 222 F.3d 943,
`
`55 USPQ2d 1842, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (descriptive component of a mark may be
`
`given little weight in reaching a conclusion on likelihood of confusion); In re Nat’l
`
`Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (for rational reasons,
`
`more or less weight may been given to a particular feature of a mark). Considering
`
`Applicant’s mark in its entirety, we conclude that it is a close approximation of the
`
`Administration’s name or identity.
`
`4. Whether Applicant’s mark points uniquely and unmistakably to the
`Administration?
`
`“[T]o show an invasion of one’s ‘persona,’ it is not sufficient to show merely prior
`
`identification with the name adopted by another. The mark … must point uniquely
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Serial No. 88087696
`
`to the [plaintiff].” Univ. of Notre Dame, 217 USPQ at 509 (“Under concepts of the
`
`protection of one’s ‘identity,’ ... the initial and critical requirement is that the name
`
`(or an equivalent thereof) claimed to be appropriated by another must be
`
`unmistakably associated with a particular personality or ‘persona.”’). See also Bos.
`
`Athletic, 117 USPQ2d at 1497 (quoting Univ. of Notre Dame, 217 USPQ at 509); In
`
`re Kayser-Roth Corp., 29 USPQ2d 1379 (TTAB 1993) (registration of mark “Olympic
`
`Champion,” for clothing, does not point uniquely and unmistakably to U.S. Olympic
`
`Committee); Ritz Hotel Ltd. v. Ritz Closet Seat Corp., 17 USPQ2d 1466, 1471 (TTAB
`
`1990) (RIT-Z, for toilet seats, did not point uniquely to Opposer); NASA v. Bully Hill
`
`Vineyards, Inc., 3 USPQ2d 1671, 1676 (TTAB 1987) (the term SPACE SHUTTLE
`
`did not point uniquely and unmistakably to NASA). Here, we must consider whether
`
`the average consumer of consulting services in the field of workplace safety would
`
`recognize the term OSHA as pointing uniquely to the Administration.
`
`Applicant argues that its mark does not point uniquely and unmistakably to the
`
`Administration, because “[m]ore than two dozen companies, many with federal
`
`registrations and applications for related training or consulting services, use OSHA
`
`in arguably more prominent ways than Applicant.” 14 TTABVUE 17. In support,
`
`Applicant submitted copies of 21 third-party registrations for marks comprising the
`
`term OSHA for similar and related services.2 May 25, 2019 Response, TSDR 12-25,
`
`
`2 Applicant additionally submitted copies of two applications and two registrations for marks
`incorporating the letters “osha” in such a way as to obviate the reference to OSHA; these
`have been disregarded. Third-party applications are evidence only of the fact that they have
`been filed. Interpayment Servs. Ltd. v. Docters & Thiede, 66 USPQ2d 1463, 1468 n.6 (TTAB
`2003).
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Serial No. 88087696
`
`40-54, 68-78. Applicant also submitted copies of web pages showing the registrants’
`
`use of their marks on the Internet. Applicant’s Request for Remand, 10 TTABVUE.
`
`Examples of such third-party uses and registrations include:
`
` Reg. No. 4805083 for the mark OSHA TODAY (“OSHA”
`disclaimed) for, inter alia, “Providing online publications in the
`nature of news articles in the fields of occupational health and
`safety, workers and employers, laws, rules and regulations,
`legal requirements and legal decisions, risk management,
`workers’ compensation, ergonomics and toxics; providing news
`in the nature of current event reporting” (owned by Providence
`Publications, LLC);
`
`from
`copy of a page
`o Applicant provided a
`https://oshatoday.com, showing a 2020 copyright notice
`in the name of Providence Publications, LLC and the
`tagline: “OSHAToday is your resource for OSHA
`news.” 10 TTABVUE 194.
`
`o Applicant also provided a copy of a page from
`https://www.cal-osha.com, entitled “Award Winning
`Cal-OSHA Reporter” that included a copyright notice
`in the name of Providence Publications, LLC. 10
`TTABVUE 269.
`
` Reg. No. 4917904 for the mark OSHA 30/30 (“OSHA”
`disclaimed) for “Education services, namely, providing on-line
`webinars in the field of occupational safety and health” (owned
`by Keller and Heckman LLP);
`
`from
`of pages
`copy
`submitted a
`o Applicant
`https://www.khlaw.com, the Keller and Heckman LLP
`website, advertising “OSHA 30/30 A thirty minute
`update on OSHA law every thirty days” offered as a
`webinar and a podcast. 10 TTABVUE 195-97.
`
` Reg. No. 2175170 for the mark OSHA UP-TO-DATE (“OSHA”
`disclaimed) for “Newsletter dealing with workplace safety
`issues” (owned by the National Safety Council);
`
`o The National Safety Council (NSC) appeared in an
`excerpt from Applicant’s “osha training” Google search,
`10 TTABVUE 16, and Applicant submitted pages from
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Serial No. 88087696
`
`its website at https://www.nsc.org offering several
`courses in occupational health and safety. There is a
`disclaimer on the website, explaining that NSC is not
`an “OTI Education Center, but serves as a host
`training organization for National Safety Education
`Center.” 10 TTABVUE 120.
`
` Reg. No. 2370949 for the mark OSHABUSTERS for “Legal
`services” (owned by Mark A. Washak, P.C.);
`
` Reg. No. 5272855 for the mark OSHA COMPLIANCE MADE
`EASY (“OSHA” disclaimed) for “Conducting medical physical
`evaluations” (owned by Dawson Compliance);
`
`o Applicant submitted a copy of a web page from
`https://www.dawsoncompliance.com, where Dawson
`Compliance advertises that they are “The Leading
`Provider of Onsite OSHA Solutions – OSHA
`Compliance Made Easy™.” 10 TTABVUE 206.
`
` Reg. No. 4104204 for the mark OSHACAMPUS (acquired
`distinctiveness claimed in whole) for “Education services
`rendered online, namely, providing courses of study and
`instruction in the field of workplace safety, workplace health
`and workplace discrimination prevention, and distribution of
`training materials
`in connection therewith”
`(owned by
`360training.com, Inc.);
`
`from
`pages
`several
`submitted
`o Applicant
`https://www.360training, advertising “OSHA safety
`training courses,” including a link to “Canada Health
`& Safety Training.” 10 TTABVUE 52-56. On the
`website, there is a question and answer section that
`suggests that 360training.com, Inc. is authorized by
`the Dept. of Labor to present its training:
`
` “What is OSHA Certification? Officially,
`there’s no
`such
`thing
`as
`“OSHA
`certification,” and OSHA itself discourages
`the use of the phrase. However, it’s often
`used to refer to OSHA’s Outreach program,
`because the DOL does issue official OSHA
`10-Hour or 30-Hour cards. … These aren’t
`required by OSHA, but they are required by
`certain states and types of employers.
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Serial No. 88087696
`
` How Do You Get a DOL Card? You can
`earn an official DOL card by completing an
`OSHA Outreach training program. OSHA
`doesn’t provide this training itself. It lays out
`the rules for these programs and approves
`third parties who undergo a rigorous
`training process. … You want to look for a
`provider that is “OSHA-authorized” when
`shopping for a DOL card. You can confirm
`their credentials on OSHA’s website.”
`
`o 360Training.com, Inc. is noted on the website of
`OSHA.COM (no URL address given but phone no.,
`email address, and chat feature given) as providing
`their training courses. 10 TTABVUE 48-50. On its
`pages, OSHA.COM identifies 360Training as an
`“OSHA Accepted Provider.” It identifies itself as
`providing “OSHA-authorized online training,” but also
`notes: “OSHA.com is a privately owned website that is
`not affiliated with any government agency,” 10
`TTABVUE 49, and “is in no way affiliated with the
`OSHA website available at http://osha.gov.” Id. at 50.
`
` Reg. No. 4783614 (on the Supplemental Register) for the mark
`OSHA CAMPUS ONLINE for “Education services rendered
`online via the internet, namely providing courses of study and
`instruction in the field of safety and health” (owned by
`Professional Bartending Schools of America, Inc.);
`
` Reg. No. 4966561 (on the Supplemental Register) for the mark
`OSHA EDUCATION CENTER for “Education services
`provided on a global computer network, namely, providing
`online courses and instruction in the fields of safety, health, and
`workplace safety and associated workplace safety Code of
`Federal Regulations standards” (owned by American Safety
`Council, Inc.);
`
`o Applicant submitted a copy of pages from the American
`Safety Council, Inc.’s website, advertising “OSHA 30-
`Hour Training Online” and identifying itself as offering
`“#1 Trusted OSHA-Authorized Training.”
`10
`TTABVUE 57-71. The company promises
`that
`“Students who complete OSHA Outreach training
`programs will be issued an official OSHA card from the
`U.S. Department of Labor.” 10 TTABVUE 68.
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Serial No. 88087696
`
` Reg. No. 5414841 for the mark OSHAKITS.COM for
`“Computerized on-line retail store services featuring food safety
`and blood borne pathogen spill kits; online retail store services
`featuring food safety and blood borne pathogen spill kits”
`(owned by Northfield Medical Manufacturing, LLC);
`
`
`the mark
`for
` Reg. No. 4903057
`(“OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH TRAINING”
`disclaimed) for “Educational services, namely, conducting
`classroom courses, seminars, workshops, and on-line training in
`the fields of occupational health, safety, and the environment
`and distribution of training materials in connection therewith”
`(owned by Geigle Safety Group, Inc.);
`
`o Applicant submitted pages from OSHAcademy (no
`URL address given but address, phone no., and email
`given). 10 TTABVUE 72-78. The pages offers classes in
`safety training, touting “Our professional training
`certificates document student achievement and are
`recognized worldwide.” 10 TTABVUE 72. Geigle Safety
`Group, Inc. specifically disclaims affiliation with the
`Dept. of Labor:
`
` “OSHAcademy Occupational Safety and Health
`Training is a division of Geigle Safety Group, Inc.,
`and is not connected or affiliated with the U.S.
`Department of Labor (DOL), or the Occupational
`Safety and Health Administration
`(OSHA).”
`10 TTABVUE 78.
`
` (“LABOR FOR
` Reg. No. 4844681 for the mark
`HIRE” and “OSHA TRAINED” disclaimed) for ”Employment
`agency services, namely, filling the temporary staffing needs of
`business”; and
`
` (“SKILLED
` Reg. No. 4840605 for the mark
`RESOURCES OSHA TRAINED” disclaimed) for “Employment
`agency services, namely, filling the temporary staffing needs of
`business” (both owned by LFH Acquisition Corp.
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Serial No. 88087696
`
`o Applicant submitted a copy of a page from the website
`https://www.laborforhire.com, which displays both
`composite marks. 10 TTABVUE 271. In the pages that
`follow, LFH Acquisition Corp. commits itself to
`“providing the best unskilled labor in the construction
`industry,” because they are “all OSHA certified for the
`job to be performed.” Id. There is no indication of
`affiliation with the Dept. of Labor on the website.
`
`(“OSHA
`
`for the mark
` Reg. No. 4833412
`TRAINING FOR AG” disclaimed) for “Education services,
`namely, providing online non-downloadable tutorials and videos
`in the field of agricultural safety training” (owned by Good Day’s
`Work LLC).
`
`o Applicant submitted two pages from the website
`https://gooddayswork.ag/, which advertises “Get home
`safe. Online OSHA Safety Training for Agriculture.” 10
`TTABVUE 275.
`
`The prevalence of disclaimers of the designation OSHA in the third-party
`
`registrations supports a finding that the designation is merely the subject matter of
`
`the third-parties’ identified goods and services. Moreover, the third party use of
`
`OSHA alone, as shown in the above excerpts, is not use as a source indicator for the
`
`goods or services but again identifies the subject matter of those goods and services.
`
`In addition to submitting third-party registrations and showing how some of the
`
`marks of the registrations are used in the marketplace, Applicant provided evidence
`
`of unregistered third-party use of “OSHA” for training or consultation services. For
`
`example:
`
`
`
`Karen Daw provides workshops “tailored for those working
`in healthcare” to learn about OSHA regulations, using the
`trade name “The OSHA Lady.” At www.KarenDaw.com, 10
`TTABVUE 207-212.
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Serial No. 88087696
`
`Under the mark “OSHAtrac,” Oshatrac.com offers “an
`online secure, web-based application which enables
`employers to create accident reports, print required OSHA
`documents, and track injury metrics in real-time.” At
`httpp://www.oshatrac.com, 10 TTABVUE 213.
`
`OSHALogs advertises “Take the Guesswork out of OSHA
`Recordkeeping” by offering a
`“Secure, Web-Based
`Application that Enables Employers to Create Each State’s
`First Report of Injury, Track Injuries, Print All Required
`OSHA Reports, and View Injury Metrics in Real-Time.” At
`https://www.oshalogs.com, 10 TTABVUE 247-252.
`
`ECBM Insurance Brokers and Consultants offers OSHA
`training through a service portal named MyWave on the
`website. “Included in the MyWave Portal is access to
`MyWave OSHA. MyWave OSHA is an online app that
`allows clients to record, track, and create reports from their
`OSHA log quickly and easily.” At https://www.ecbm.com,
`10 TTABVUE 265.
`
`The Examining Attorney argues that Applicant’s evidence is unpersuasive,
`
`because many of the third parties make it clear that the Dept. of Labor authorizes
`
`them to use the OSHA designation. “For example, the webpage of OSHA.COM has
`
`a notice stating that the training services are offered by ‘360training OSHA
`
`ACCEPTED PROVIDER;’ 360 TRAINING’s webpage discusses how OSHA approves
`
`third parties who undergo training, and one should look for OSHA-authorized
`
`providers; and OSHA EDUCATION CENTER webpage states that it is OSHA
`
`authorized.” 16 TTABVUE 9. The majority of the third-party websites, however, do
`
`not suggest any affiliation, and several disavow any business relationship, with the
`
`Dept. of Labor. We agree with Applicant that its mark, which includes “Global
`
`OSHA,” does not point uniquely to the Dept. of Labor such that it is unmistakably
`
`associated with the Administration.
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Serial No. 88087696
`
`Given the large number of third-party registrations using the term “OSHA” to
`
`descriptively identify training services in the field of occupational health and safety,
`
`relevant consumers will perceive the designation as identifying OSHA-health-and-
`
`safety-standards compliance courses offered by a number of unrelated third parties.
`
`Applicant’s use of its mark is similar to the descriptive use prevalent among these
`
`parties. Accordingly, the requirement that the name or identity serve to uniquely
`
`point to a single entity has not been satisfied.
`
`C. Summary
`
`In order to falsely suggest a connection with another entity by using the same or
`
`close approximation of a mark owned by the entity, the mark must be recognized as
`
`pointing uniquely and unmistakably to it. Here, because there are many companies
`
`that use the designation OSHA as a constituent part of their marks to indicate their
`
`own safety-related services, the mark does not point uniquely to the Administration.
`
`Thus, there is no false suggestion of a connection with the Administration arising
`
`from Applicant’s similar use of the term OSHA.
`
`Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s mark
`
`under Trademark Act Section 2(a) is reversed.
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`