TTAB Sustains Section 2(d) Opposition to RAMEN HOOD & Design for Asian-Themed Restaurant Services

[Caveat: the TTABlogger served as co-counsel to the opposer in this consolidated proceeding]. The Board  sustained Section 2(d) oppositions to the word-and-design marks shown immediately below, for Asian-themed cuisine and for restaurant services featuring same, finding confusion likely with opposer's common law mark RAMEN HOOD & Design (shown to the right) for Asian-themed restaurant services. Applicant submitted no evidence or testimony, leaving it up to opposer to prove its case. Ramen Hood, LLC v. Ramenhood LLC, Oppositions Nos. 91254894 and 91256310 (January 24, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Robert H. Coggins).

Applicant was entitled to rely on the application filing dates as its constructive first use dates: December 12, 2017 and April 10, 2018. Opposer proved through the testimony of its sole and managing member that it first used the mark RAMEN HOOD for Asian-themed restaurant services - featuring ramen, noodles, rice bowls, broths, etc. - since opening its restaurant on November 16, 2015 in the historic Grand Central Market in Los Angeles. Thus, opposer established priority of use.

As to likelihood of confusion, opposer's restaurant services are identical to those recited in the opposed applications. With regard to applicant's goods (Asian-themed cuisine), those goods are inherently related to opposer's restaurant services featuring Asian-themed food. In addition, opposer introduced copies of eight use-based third-party registrations that cover both restaurant services and various Asian foods.

With respect to channels of trade, the opposed applications do not contain any relevant limitations, and so applicant's goods and services are assumed to travel in the normal channels of trade and are available to all the usual consumers, including through restaurants. For the services, the trade channels overlap. For the goods, the third-party registrations are evidence that the likely trade channels overlap.

Opposer's witness testified that opposer "chose the name RAMEN HOOD as a whimsical play on the name of the famous literary character, Robin Hood,' and the mark on its 'signage . . . menus and other printed items . . . include[s] a design of an arrow to subtly remind the public of that reference." The Board found that opposer's mark is inherently and conceptually strong "because it incongruously associates the legendary English outlaw Robin Hood with a 'Japanese dish of noodles in broth.'"

As to commercial strength, the Board found that while opposer's restaurant is "obviously successful," there was little evidence to prove its renown beyond Los Angeles. And so the Board accorded opposer's mark "the normal scope of protection to which inherently distinctive marks are entitled."

Finally, turning to the marks, the Board unsurprisingly found the word RAMEN HOOD to be the dominant feature of each of the involved marks. In fact, the term RAMEN HOOD is used by both parties in textual references to their goods and services. Opposer's mark and applicant's marks "incongruously associate[] the highly skilled archer Robin Hood with the Japanese ramen dish of noodles in broth." The differing characters and design elements of applicant's mark "reinforce the connotation and commercial impression of the RAMEN HOOD element, just as Opposer's squiggly arrow design does in Opposer's mark."

And so, the Board sustained the oppositions.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: No comment from me.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2023.