|
Recent Trademark Trial and
Appeal Board cases of Interest:
TTAB affirms genericism refusal of GRIND N
BREW.
Notwithstanding Applicant's claim of acquired distinctiveness,
Examining Attorney, Simon Teng, refused registration of GRIND
N BREW on the grounds of genericness, and in the
alternative, mere descriptiveness and lack of acquired
distinctiveness. The Board affirmed. In
re Grindmaster Corporation, Serial No. 77834762
(October 28, 2011) [not precedential].
The
Examiner submitted evidence that the mark is generic or at the
very least descriptive fro commercial and home coffee makers.
Because of the highly descriptive nature of GRIND N BREW,
Applicant faced a heavy burden to prove acquired distinctiveness
and ultimately was unable to do so.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TTAB finds Restaurant Services and Food
and Beverage Items Related, Affirms 2(d) Refusal of ST. JOE'S
COFFEE
In
re Gabriel Miller & Jason Miller, Serial No.
77855808 (November 3, 2011) [not precedential].
Here, the Board found that Examining Attorney,
Meghan Reinhart, "carefully established something
more:" the evidence demonstrated a "close
relationship between coffee and restaurant services with some of
the larges franchise operations in the country" [e.g.,
DUNKIN DONUTS and STARBUCKS]; between other beverage and food
items, and restaurant services [e.g.,
MAUI WOWI and COLLEGE HILL COFFEE CO.]; and between various
pastries/bakery items and restaurant services [e.g.,
THE CHEESECAKE FACTORY, COCO'S BAKERY, THE CUPCAKERY, and TOBIES
RESTAURANT AND BAKERY].
The Board therefore found that the Applicant's
"food and beverage items are closely related to
registrant's types of restaurant and dining services."
Moreover, there is a "significant overlap" in channels
of trade, and the classes of consumers are the same.
The Board therefore concluded that confusion is likely, and it
affirmed the Section 2(d) refusal.
|