TTABlog Test: Are Coffee and Alcoholic Beverages Related Under Section 2(d)?

The USPTO refused to register the word-and-design mark shown below, for "coffee; coffee-based beverages; all of the foregoing goods not infused with alcohol, not used as an ingredient in alcoholic beverages, and not sold in connection with alcoholic beverages" [COFFEE disclaimed], finding confusion likely with the registered mark BEEKEEPER for “alcoholic beverages except beers." The Board unsurprisingly found that applicant's mark is dominated by the words BEE KEEPER, and so the marks were deemed confusingly similar. But what about the goods? How do you think this came out? In re Coffee Concepts LLC, Serial No. 98046428 (February 19, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christopher C. Larkin).

The Board observed that "[]he relatedness of goods or services may be established based on a variety of evidence, including (1) the language of the involved identifications of goods or services, which may show, on the face of the identifications, that the goods or services are literally or legally identical, or are otherwise intrinsically related, and (2) evidence of third-party uses or registrations, which may show that the identified goods or services are commonly offered by the same entity under the same mark, or are otherwise related."

The Board agreed with applicant that the goods are not inherently related based on the respective identifications of goods. However, third-party evidence told a different story. The record included 19 third-party registrations covering coffee and alcoholic beverages, as well as 9 probative third-party uses of marks for both coffee and wine or spirits. This evidence sufficed to show that "non-alcohol infused coffee and one or more of the goods encompassed within the 'alcoholic beverages except beer' identified in the ’401 Registration are related goods."

Applicant contended that the language “not infused with alcohol, not used as an ingredient in alcoholic beverages, and not sold in connection with alcoholic beverages” is a “limitation to the trade channels” for the goods that “further demonstrates that Applicant’s goods are not sold with or used in connection with the Cited Marks’ goods and renders the Examining Attorney’s internet evidence unpersuasive.” The Board disagreed.

The purported limitations to coffee “not used as an ingredient in alcoholic beverages” and “not sold in connection with alcoholic beverages” are meaningless because while Applicant itself does not sell alcoholic beverages, it cannot control how its coffee is used by sellers or consumers of alcoholic beverages, or whether its coffee is sold “in connection with alcoholic beverages” by retail customers. For example, Applicant’s coffee could be mixed by a consumer with Irish whiskey to create an “Irish coffee.”

Applicant conceded that the goods at issue can be purchased from the same store, and in fact argued that “[m]ost consumers buy their alcohol and coffee from supermarkets.” The Board found that "the relevant channels of trade include, at a minimum, supermarkets and the brick-and-mortar and online stores of distilleries and wineries, and that consumers of spirits and wine also consume coffee not infused with alcohol."

The Board found that the first, second, and third DuPont factors supported the refusal, and the fourth and sixth were neutral.

We conclude, on the basis of the record as a whole, that consumers who have a general recollection of the cited BEEKEEPER mark for “alcoholic beverages except beers” who separately encounter Applicant’s composite mark, dominated by the words BEE KEEPERS, for coffee not infused with alcohol are likely to believe mistakenly that the goods have a common source.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: Is there any non-alcoholic beverage that is not, or could not be, combined with alcoholic beverages?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.