[E-trademarks] Juice and Alcohol

[Edward Timberlake]

Which side are we on?

Do we want them to be similar, or do we want to argue that they're not
similar?

If we want them to be similar:

Juices and alcoholic beverages (in the form of beers) are both in Class 32.

Class 32 (juices) and Class 33 (alcoholic beverages except beers) are
coordinated classes.

The ID Manual contains an entry for: "Alcoholic beverages containing fruit
juice."

There are multiple live registrations based on use in commerce for
alcoholic beverages containing fruit.

There's at least one live registration based on use where the same mark is
used for both "non-alcoholic beverages containing fruit juice" and
alcoholic beverages.

Unfermented fruit = juice
Fermented fruit = alcoholic beverages

(If you start with juice and literally do nothing it can become an
alcoholic beverage.)

If we want to argue fruit juice and alcoholic beverages are not similar for
likelihood of confusion purposes:

There don't appear to be very many live registrations based on use where
the same mark is used for both "non-alcoholic beverages containing fruit
juice" and alcoholic beverages.

Sold in different stores (or at least different sections of stores).

Different trade channels.

Not all goods in the same International Class are necessarily related for
likelihood of confusion purposes.

Not all goods in coordinated classes are necessarily related for likelihood
of confusion purposes.

(Don't forget to factor in how similar or dissimilar the marks are and the
effect that can have on the issue of relatedness of goods.)

If you have access to Pinkney's Product Comparison Manual for Trademark
Users, I'm pretty sure there are some (old) references in there involving
"Juice, fruit" and at least some alcoholic beverages.



Sincerely,

Ed Timberlake
*Board Certified Specialist in Trademark Law
<https://www.nclawspecialists.gov/for-the-public/find-a-board-certified-specialist/results/detail/?id=29473>*

*Timberlake Law* <http://timberlakelaw.com/>
Chapel Hill, NC

Schedule a call on Clarity <https://clarity.fm/edtimberlake>
ed at timberlakelaw.com
919.960.1950








On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 10:22 AM Stacey Friends via E-trademarks <
e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:

> Dear List,
>
> I am wondering if any of you are aware of any  precedent regarding juices
> and alcoholic beverages being considered similar. I would appreciate any
> insight you have on this point.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Stacey
>
>
> Stacey Friends​​​​  |  Partner
> RIMÔN
> +1 617.206.3747 <+1%20617.206.3747>  |  stacey.friends at rimonlaw.com
> www.rimonlaw.com <https://rimonlaw.com/> |
> <https://rimonlaw.com/locations>See Our International Offices
> <https://rimonlaw.com/locations>  <https://rimonlaw.com/locations>|
> Read Our Insights <https://rimonlaw.com/news-all>
> Connect on  <https://www.linkedin.com/company/rimon?trk=company_logo>
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/company/rimon?trk=company_logo> |
> Like us on  <https://www.facebook.com/rimonlaw/>Facebook
> <https://www.facebook.com/rimonlaw/>
> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and contains information that may be
> confidential or privileged.  If you have received this communication in
> error, please reply to the sender (only) and then please delete this
> message from your inbox as well as any copies. Thank you.
> ​
> ​
> --
> 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/20240301/8ce2fc75/attachment.htm>