Trademark Win: WHAT’S YOUR + ? vs. WHAT’S YOUR +1

Mark: WHAT’S YOUR + ?

Goods/Services: Consulting in business organization and management, career placement, and business networking; excluding services related to project-based learning, curriculum design, and K–12 teacher education

Refusal Grounds: Likelihood of confusion (Section 2(d)) with the registered mark WHAT’S YOUR +1 for professional and personal development services

When we applied to register WHAT’S YOUR + ? on our client's behalf, the USPTO raised a red flag, claiming it was too close to the registered mark WHAT’S YOUR +1, which also covers professional and personal development services. According to the examiner, both parties promoted concepts such as “developing a strong work ethic, superior service, and integrity” within their respective offerings.

We took a two-pronged approach. First, we amended the class identification to carve out any potentially overlapping services, expressly excluding project-based learning, curriculum design, and K–12 teacher education — all central to the cited registration’s scope. This eliminated direct competition in the services described.

Second, we dismantled the examiner’s relatedness evidence. Their reliance on massive, catch-all brands like Audible, National Geographic, and Barnes & Noble — each offering an enormous variety of unrelated programs — could not prove that the specific services in question would be expected to come from a single source. We also demonstrated that the other examples, drawn from education-focused organizations, simply did not align with our client’s services.

Supporting our position with cases such as In re Detroit Athletic Co. and In re White Rock Distilleries, we reminded the USPTO that Section 2(d) requires a likelihood, not a mere possibility, of confusion — and that this must be supported by relevant, substantial evidence.

The USPTO ultimately agreed, withdrew its refusal, and approved WHAT’S YOUR + ? for registration. Another example of how precise drafting and targeted legal arguments can dismantle a refusal and protect a unique brand.