Robert S. Broder, PLLC

                                  Attorneys At Law

 

2209 Merrick Road - Suite 204

Merrick, NY 11566
Phone: 516.771.0349

 

Home | Areas of Practice | Bio | Legal Topics | News | Contact Us

 
   
News at BroderLaw.net

Recent Trademark Trial and Appeal Board cases of Interest:

 

TTAB affirms genericism refusal of GRIND N BREW.  

 

Notwithstanding Applicant's claim of acquired distinctiveness, Examining Attorney, Simon Teng, refused registration of GRIND N BREW on the grounds of genericness, and in the alternative, mere descriptiveness and lack of acquired distinctiveness. The Board affirmed. In re Grindmaster Corporation, Serial No. 77834762 (October 28, 2011) [not precedential].



 

 

The Examiner submitted evidence that the mark is generic or at the very least descriptive fro commercial and home coffee makers. Because of the highly descriptive nature of GRIND N BREW, Applicant faced a heavy burden to prove acquired distinctiveness and ultimately was unable to do so.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TTAB finds Restaurant Services and Food and Beverage Items Related, Affirms 2(d) Refusal of ST. JOE'S COFFEE

In re Gabriel Miller & Jason Miller, Serial No. 77855808 (November 3, 2011) [not precedential].

 


Here, the Board found that Examining Attorney, Meghan Reinhart, "carefully established something more:" the evidence demonstrated a "close relationship between coffee and restaurant services with some of the larges franchise operations in the country" [e.g., DUNKIN DONUTS and STARBUCKS]; between other beverage and food items, and restaurant services [e.g., MAUI WOWI and COLLEGE HILL COFFEE CO.]; and between various pastries/bakery items and restaurant services [e.g., THE CHEESECAKE FACTORY, COCO'S BAKERY, THE CUPCAKERY, and TOBIES RESTAURANT AND BAKERY].


The Board therefore found that the Applicant's "food and beverage items are closely related to registrant's types of restaurant and dining services." Moreover, there is a "significant overlap" in channels of trade, and the classes of consumers are the same.

The Board therefore concluded that confusion is likely, and it affirmed the Section 2(d) refusal.

Robert S. Broder, P.C. 2903 Preston Lane Merrick, NY 11566
Phone: 516.771.0349   rsbroder@optonline.net

Legal Topics of Interest

 

Basic facts about Trademarks 

Read More...

 

Types of Business Entities

Read More...

 

Buying and Selling Real Estate

Read More (pdf)...

 

What is a Health Care Proxy?

Read More...

 

FAQ's about Health Care Proxies

Read More...

 

News@BroderLaw.net

 

USPTO Electronic filing

More News...


 

 
 

2004 - 2011  206 Bones Design - All Rights Reserved.

DISCLAIMER The information contained in this site is provided for general information only and should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship.