Four EARTHBORN marks refused registration; HOTEL BORN registration will be removed

Decision Desk · August 27, 2026 decision · Nonprecedential

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) is the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office panel that decides challenges to trademark registrations and appeals from refused applications. The Board marked this opinion nonprecedential, meaning it does not bind the Board in later cases.

Blue Ridge Hospitality Group, LLC sought to register EARTHBORN SUITES, EARTHBORN INN, EARTHBORN COMMONS and EARTHBORN HOTELS for hotel, motel and restaurant services. The Board refused registration for all four after finding the marks somewhat similar to LNMark, LLC’s BORN mark and their hotel services overlapping. Opinion, pp. 2, 20.

Source: the Board’s complete opinion in case 91290447, with page citations below. This report describes the decision; it is not legal advice.

LNMark kept its BORN registration, while the Board ordered its HOTEL BORN registration cancelled. The Board found plans to resume using BORN for hotel services at a new resort, but no evidence of plans to resume using HOTEL BORN. Opinion, pp. 3, 11.

LNMark brought an opposition, a challenge to Blue Ridge’s requests to register the marks, alleging likely confusion, a risk that customers would mistake the source of the services. Blue Ridge sought cancellation, removal of a registration, for BORN and HOTEL BORN, claiming abandonment, a stop in use without an intent to resume. Opinion, pp. 2–3.

The Board found that LNMark’s only hotel using BORN and HOTEL BORN changed names by May 2023, ending its use of both marks for hotel and related services. LNMark argued that its planned BORN MOUNTAIN CLUB resort continued or extended its use of both marks for hotel services. Blue Ridge argued that BORN MOUNTAIN CLUB was not the same as either mark used at the earlier hotel. Opinion, pp. 6, 9.

The Board found that materials for the planned resort showed an intent to use BORN with hotel services but showed no intent to resume using HOTEL BORN. The Board declined to presume that the marks would not be used again after three years without use, because those three years ended while the parties were filing their written arguments. Opinion, pp. 11–12.

For the four EARTHBORN marks, the Board compared them with BORN because it found BORN closer to them than LNMark’s other marks. The Board wrote that “Applicant does not contest Opposer’s priority” for the services covered by LNMark’s BORN registration; priority means who used the mark first. Opinion, pp. 3, 13.

The Board found the marks somewhat similar in appearance and sound and more similar in meaning. It found that the hotel accommodation services in Blue Ridge’s applications fell within the hotel services covered by LNMark’s BORN registration. Because the listed hotel services had no restrictions, the Board presumed the overlapping services would reach customers through the same channels, meaning the ways customers encounter or buy those services. Opinion, pp. 17–18.

The Board concluded that the similar marks, overlapping hotel services and shared channels supported a likelihood of confusion, meaning customers might mistake the source of the services. Its final decision addressed the four requests to register EARTHBORN marks and the HOTEL BORN registration. Opinion, p. 20.

This report describes the decision as issued; it does not follow any later appeal.

Sources

• The Board’s complete opinion; GleanMark case record.