TTAB: A Monogram Read as a Design, Not a Word, Defeats an EMPOWERRF Opposition

By Imaduddin

Photo: Jmtd / Pixabay

The US Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) has granted summary judgment to Empower Aesthetics LLC and dismissed with prejudice an opposition by Inmode Ltd (Opposition No. 91299827, order of 20 October 2026, not a precedent of the Board).

Empower Aesthetics applied to register a highly stylised mark for Class 44 medical spa and cosmetic treatment services. Its application described the mark as a monogram of the letters in EMPOWER. Inmode opposed under Section 2(d), relying on its registrations for EMPOWERRF and EMPOWERRF BY INMODE.

Inmode argued that the literal element of the applied-for mark was identical to the dominant part of its own marks. The Board disagreed. Citing Trademark Rule 2.52 and earlier case law, it said "the drawing of the mark, not the words an application uses to describe it, controls what the mark is." Looking at the drawing, the Board saw geometric shapes arranged into "a portal-like configuration devoid of any literal component", and found it highly unlikely that consumers could rearrange any letters they noticed into the word EMPOWER.

That dissimilarity outweighed every other factor, including the partly identical services and presumed overlap in trade channels. The first DuPont factor was dispositive.

The order is a useful reminder for filers anywhere, including applicants at DJKI: what the examiner and the public see is the image on file. A heavily stylised logo may avoid a conflict with a word mark, but for the same reason it may give its owner little protection over the word itself.

Sources

• USPTO TTAB, Inmode Ltd v Empower Aesthetics LLC, Opposition No. 91299827, order (20 Oct 2026)
• The TTABlog, "TTAB Enters Summary Judgment Dismissing EMPOWER Monogram Opposition: First DuPont Factor Dispositive" (Oct 2026)
• VitalLaw, "TRADEMARK: TTAB: 'EMPOWER' monogram not confusable with EMPOWERRF for cosmetic medical goods/services" (Oct 2026)