TTABlog Test: Is WISHBONES for a Casino Bar Confusable with WISHBONE FARMS for Restaurant Services?

The USPTO refused to register the mark WISHBONES for "bar services provided in a casino,” finding confusion likely with the registered mark WISHBONE FARMS (standard characters) for "“restaurant, catering and restaurant carryout" [FARMS disclaimed]. Applicant Caesars did not dispute the relatedness of the services but argued that the marks have "clearly different" connotations because the word FARMS suggests that registrant’s services are associated with a farm at a specific location where registrant provides its services or sources food. How do you think this appeal came out? In re Caesars License Company, LLC, Serial No. 98083981 (November 24, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Catherine Dugan O'Connor).

Examining Attorney Juna Bell submitted evidence that farm-to-table restaurants are desirable for sustainable or cleaner dining, with consumers now accustomed to farms being associated with restaurants, such that the “presence of FARMS in the registrant’s mark does not change the commercial impression of the marks because consumers may perceive WISHBONE FARMS as being related to WISHBONES but provided on a farm or featuring food from farms." She also provided evidence that casinos have embraced “eatertainment,” in which guests seek unique and elevated dining experiences; even casino buffets “have really increased in quality, and food has gone upscale exponentially,” with food cooked fresh several times a day.

Applicant Caesars insisted that the term WISHBONE in the cited mark would be perceived as either the name of the farm or as referring to farm animals such as turkeys or chickens, which have a bone called a wishbone. In contrast, its mark WISHBONES has a very different connotation when used with casino bar services, either being arbitrary, suggesting the name of a person (such as the bar’s owner), or conveying the concept of good luck while gambling “just as getting the bigger half of the Thanksgiving turkey wishbone is reputed to bring good luck."

The Board, however, did not believe "that consumers familiar with the general connotation of FARMS relating to farm-to-table food are likely to perceive WISHBONE in the cited mark as referring to an anatomical feature of poultry rather than the common tradition.

Moreover, there was no evidence that consumers would perceive WISHBONES as the name of the bar’s founder or any other person. “WISHBONE” is not a common personal nickname and Applicant’s mark does not contain an apostrophe indicating that it is possessive.

Finally, Caesars urged that the USPTO’s registration of marks that are nearly identical except for the word “FARM” or “FARMS” for restaurant services warrants a similar outcome here. In support, Applicant referred to ten pairs of such of registrations. The Board conceded that some of the pairs (e.g., JUNE/JUNE FARMS and ROSEWOOD/ROSEWOOD FARMS) appeared on their face to contradict the refusal, but it shook them off.

We acknowledge the importance of consistency in examination actions, but we are not bound by the prior registrability determinations of examining attorneys made at different times on different records. Instead, we must assess the registrability of Applicant’s mark based on the record before us.

And so, the Board affirmed the refusal.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: Was this appeal merely wishful thinking? Should Caesars have conceded the relatedness of the services?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.