2(d) Refusal Of "ICEBERG" For Cheese Melts Under TTAB Demand For "Something More"
As discussed here at the TTABlog, in restaurant/food product cases, CAFC precedent requires "something more" than mere similarity or identity of the marks to support a likelihood of confusion refusal. That "something more" was lacking in In re Roth Kase U.S.A. Ltd., Serial No. 76479059 (June 8, 2005). Consequently, the Board reversed a Section 2(d) refusal to register the mark ICEBERG for cheese, finding it not likely to cause confusion with the mark ICEBERG DRIVE INN, registered for restaurant services.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ade96/ade960221cb05ff0501bd05d8ebd457131aa8a5d" alt=""
The Examining Attorney relied on seven third-party registrations each covering restaurant services and food items, as well as on a copy of an ICEBERG DRIVE INN menu showing that the fare includes cheeseburgers, Philly cheesesteaks, and chili cheese dogs.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6c6fa/6c6faccc617aaef14f609885e84cb042cf203426" alt=""
The Board applied In re Coors Brewing Co., 68 USPQ2d 1059 (Fed. Cir. 2003) -- a decision that neither the Applicant nor the Examining Attorney discussed -- in ruling that "there is not substantial evidence in the record to establish that purchasers are likely to assume that a source connection exists." The third-party registration evidence and Registrant's menu failed to establish the required "something more."
"Only three of the third-party registrations cover both restaurant services and cheese, per se. That cheese may be an ingredient in other of the food items covered by the third-party registrations, and an ingredient in several of the items on the cited registrant's own menu, is not enough, under In re Coors Brewing Co., supra, to persuade us that a likelihood of confusion exists."
TTABlog comment: No quarrel with this one. Why on earth would anyone think ICEBERG brand cheese would have a connection with the ICEBERG DRIVE INN chain? It would be a different story if it were McDONALD's for cheese, wouldn't it? Do you think the cited registrant will oppose? I think it would be a Titanic mistake.
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2005. All Rights Reserved.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home