[E-trademarks] FW: Heck Freezes Over: USPTO Fails to Prove Gin Related to Beer Under Section 2(d)

Mon Dec 23 17:20:19 UTC 2024

Is this precedent?  Please tell me that this is precedent.  Last week, I
got what I consider to be a very stupid office action, in which my client's
application for video games was rejected based on a registration for a
customer loyalty rewards program.  The examiner found a few
everything-and-the-kitchen-sink applications that include both of these
items, a couple that (fair enough) were more narrow, and, infuriatingly,
one that included games but *didn't actually include loyalty programs*.

Cheers,

Sam Castree, III

*Sam Castree Law, LLC*
*3421 W. Elm St.*
*McHenry, IL 60050*
*(815) 344-6300*

On Mon, Dec 23, 2024 at 11:14 AM Kevin Grierson via E-trademarks <
e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:

> Interesting decision by the TTAB.  Although as a general matter I am not a
> fan of the PTO’s “three websites” relatedness arguments, it seems to me
> that at some point the Board’s numerous decisions about the relatedness of
> beer, wine, and other alcoholic beverages ought to serve as persuasive
> precedent even if the examiner makes a hash of the evidentiary record.
>
>
>
> *Kevin Grierson*********
>
> |
>
> Partner
>
> <https://www.cm.law/>
>
> [image: Mobile:]
>
>   757-726-7799
>
> [image: Fax:]
>
>   866-521-5663
>
> [image: Email:]
>
>   kgrierson at cm.law
>
> *Please note: Culhane Meadows is now CM Law
> <https://www.cm.law/cm-law-formerly-culhane-meadows-launches-second-decade-with-fresh-name-and-modern-brand/>*
>
>
>
> *From:* The TTABlog <feedblitz at mail.feedblitz.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, December 23, 2024 9:45 AM
> *To:* Kevin Grierson <kgrierson at cm.law>
> *Subject:* Heck Freezes Over: USPTO Fails to Prove Gin Related to Beer
> Under Section 2(d)
>
>
>
> EXTERNAL EMAIL
>
> The USPTO fumbled the ball here in what should have been a fairly easy run
> for a touchdown. The Board reversed a refusal to register the mark shown
> below left, for "gin, " finding that the USPTO failed to prove confusion
> likely with the mark on the ...
>
>
>   Heck Freezes Over: USPTO Fails to Prove Gin Related to Beer Under
> Section 2(d)
> <http://thettablog.blogspot.com/2024/12/heck-freezes-over-uspto-fails-to-prove.html>
> In This Issue...
>
>    - Heck Freezes Over: USPTO Fails to Prove Gin Related to Beer Under
>    Section 2(d) <#m_-5271008834310474970_0>
>    - More Recent Articles <#m_-5271008834310474970_182094_recap>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> The USPTO fumbled the ball here in what should have been a fairly easy run
> for a touchdown. The Board reversed a refusal to register the mark shown
> below left, for "gin," finding that the USPTO failed to prove confusion
> likely with the mark on the right, for various beers. The Board found the
> marks to be "more similar than dissimilar," but the USPTO's feeble
> evidentiary showing regarding the relatedness of gin and beer led the Board
> to weigh the second *DuPont *factor as dispositive in favor of Applicant
> Cobblestone Brands. * In re Cobblestone Brands Ltd
> <http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-97453097-EXA-8.pdf>*, Serial
> No. 97453097 (December 19, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge
> Lawrence T. Stanley, Jr.).
>
>
> <https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYDkvscfhcX80qPRPdkIxPAoPi1LUOSxLX325IqGXY18Hrmd6n_gI15TeoaakeAkbIRABqvWECwJ6ELRkZuocenTiJpI5Mdz5PO_HRUsdGoTFYaRgK9ajJbQ1U-avziynBFpK2nQ4p7quzH4RgT8-Y8sgKta04vlyYnlyLlDOQvuCOSnuAbgDN/s432/FOUR%20CORNERS%202.jpg>
>
> *The Marks:* Applicant disclaimed AMERICAN GIN, while the cited
> registration includes disclaimers of BREWING CO and DALLAS TX. Cobblestone
> argued that the design elements of the marks are the dominant features but
> the Board gave that assertion a bumpy ride, finding FOUR CORNERS to be
> dominant in both. Although the design elements are "noticeable," "it will
> be the words rather than colors or designs in the marks that will be used
> to call for and discuss Applicant’s and Registrant’s goods."
>
> Although we recognize that there are differences between the marks when
> viewed on a side-by-side basis, when compared in their entireties we find
> them more similar than dissimilar in appearance, sound, meaning, and
> commercial impression due to presence of the identical dominant phrase FOUR
> CORNERS in both marks.
>
> *The Goods:* The Office relied on "a smattering of third-party Internet
> evidence" to show the relatedness of gin and beer: a mere three websites
> offering the goods under the same mark. The Board found that evidence
> "unconvincing."
>
> While there is no threshold number, three examples are a relatively small
> amount given the number of breweries and distilleries in the United States
> and the Internet resources for research easily available on the subject to
> examining attorneys. *** [O]n the record before us, there is simply
> insufficient evidence of third parties using the same mark in connection
> with beer and gin, or evidence that a maker of gin also actually produces
> beer, or that the goods are complementary.
>
> The Examining Attorney pointed to prior Board decisions finding various
> alcoholic beverages related, but the Board was unimpressed: "Put simply,
> the Examining Attorney cannot evade the burden to prove relatedness by
> bootstrapping upon previous factual findings made in other decisions on
> different records." In any event, the evidence here "pales in comparison to
> the evidence in those cases."
>
> *Trade Channels:* The Office also failed to prove that the trade channels
> overlap. "Although the consolidation of production, distribution, and/or
> sale in the beer, wine, and spirits markets suggests that there may be some
> overlap in trade channels, we cannot make such a finding on this record."
> [Seems like the Board could take judicial notice that gin and beer are sold
> in the same retail stores. - *ed*.].
>
> *Conclusion:* The applicant wins! The applicant wins!
>
> *Read comments and post your comment *here
> <https://www.blogger.com/comment/fullpage/post/9072179/5344228739086636993>
> .
>
> *TTABlogger comment:* As I recently said in my comment on the JERSEY GIRL
> case [*TTABlogged* here
> <http://thettablog.blogspot.com/2024/12/jersey-girl-whiskey-for-distilled.html>],
> "In these alcoholic beverages case, an applicant's principal hope seems to
> be the weakness of the Office's evidence of third-party registration and
> use."
>
> *Text Copyright John L. Welch 2024.*
>
>
> <http://feedblitz.com/f?Track=http://thettablog.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default&publisher=2850146>
>
> <http://p.feedblitz.com/f.share?_/28/http%3a%2f%2fthettablog.blogspot.com%2f2024%2f12%2fheck-freezes-over-uspto-fails-to-prove.html/Heck+Freezes+Over%3a+USPTO+Fails+to+Prove+Gin+Related+to+Beer+Under+Section+2%28d%29+>
>
> <http://p.feedblitz.com/f.share?_/29/http%3a%2f%2fthettablog.blogspot.com%2f2024%2f12%2fheck-freezes-over-uspto-fails-to-prove.html/Heck+Freezes+Over%3a+USPTO+Fails+to+Prove+Gin+Related+to+Beer+Under+Section+2%28d%29+,https%3a%2f%2fblogger.googleusercontent.com%2fimg%2fb%2fR29vZ2xl%2fAVvXsEiYDkvscfhcX80qPRPdkIxPAoPi1LUOSxLX325IqGXY18Hrmd6n_gI15TeoaakeAkbIRABqvWECwJ6ELRkZuocenTiJpI5Mdz5PO_HRUsdGoTFYaRgK9ajJbQ1U-avziynBFpK2nQ4p7quzH4RgT8-Y8sgKta04vlyYnlyLlDOQvuCOSnuAbgDN%2fw252-h138%2fFOUR%2520CORNERS%25202.jpg>
>   <http://thettablog.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default>
> <http://p.feedblitz.com/f.share?_/24/http%3a%2f%2fthettablog.blogspot.com%2f2024%2f12%2fheck-freezes-over-uspto-fails-to-prove.html/Heck+Freezes+Over%3a+USPTO+Fails+to+Prove+Gin+Related+to+Beer+Under+Section+2%28d%29+>
>
>
> • Email to a friend
> <https://app.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Fwd2FriendEdit=182094;27553931;http://thettablog.blogspot.com/2024/12/heck-freezes-over-uspto-fails-to-prove.html;Heck%20Freezes%20Over:%20USPTO%20Fails%20to%20Prove%20Gin%20Related%20to%20Beer%20Under%20Section%202(d)%20;19106141>
> •
> More Recent Articles <https://app.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?goto=182094>
>
>    - Recommended Reading: The Trademark Reporter's Theme Issue on
>    Artificial Intelligence
>    <http://thettablog.blogspot.com/2024/12/tmr.html>
>    - TTABlog Test: Three Section 2(d) Appeals - Affirmed or Reversed?
>    <http://thettablog.blogspot.com/2024/12/ttablog-test-three-section-2d-appeals.html>
>    - Three Recent Inter Partes "Disasters" - Don't let this Happen to You
>    <http://thettablog.blogspot.com/2024/12/three-recent-inter-partes-disasters.html>
>    - INTA Files Proposed Amicus Brief in Peju's Appeal: SDNY Erred in
>    Applying Issue Preclusion Based on TTAB Decision
>    <http://thettablog.blogspot.com/2024/12/inta-files-proposed-amicus-brief-in.html>
>    - TTAB Dubiously Finds that Vertical Light Beams atop Guitar-Shaped
>    Building Fail to Function as a Source Indicator
>    <http://thettablog.blogspot.com/2024/12/ttab-dubiously-finds-that-vertical.html>
>
> *Safely Unsubscribe*
> <https://app.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?EmailRemove=_33476599%7c182094%7cbcfa62a086b3cc4b3442f6bcfb44b11d%7c19106141_>
> • *Archives*
> <https://archive.feedblitz.com/182094&subscriberid=33476599&validate=661cb880e59ecf6a4ff91da8d377ef61&portal=182094>
> • *Preferences*
> <https://app.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?UpdatePrefs=182094&subscriberid=33476599&validate=2acc67933edfbf5522aa7a636c57dbfa&portal=182094>
> • *Contact* <https://app.feedblitz.com/f/?NewsContact=182094> •
> *Subscribe* <https://app.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Sub=182094> • *Privacy*
> <https://www.feedblitz.com/Privacy>
> ------------------------------
>
> Email subscriptions powered by FeedBlitz® <https://www.feedblitz.com/> • 650
> E. Palisade Avenue Ste 2, PO Box 173, Englewood Cliffs • NJ 07632, USA
> <https://www.feedblitz.com/contact/>
> --
> E-trademarks mailing list
> E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241223/feccfcf5/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5049 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241223/feccfcf5/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 285 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241223/feccfcf5/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 452 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241223/feccfcf5/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 394 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241223/feccfcf5/attachment-0003.png>