Blog December 2, 2020
Similar Marks Used for Wine & Beer — Confusing or Not?
- Person title
After a few of either, the likelihood of confusion may no doubt increase. But in a recent sober judgment, the U.S. Trademark Office ruled that REUBEN'S BREWS for beer is not likely to be confused with RUBENS for wine.
The Office recognized that it had found on "a number of occasions" that beer and wine are related but that it had "in the recent past taken inconsistent positions when it comes to likelihood of confusion between marks for beer and wine." Rather than take the opportunity to declare once and for all that beer and wine should always be considered to be highly related (or not) in the likelihood of confusion analysis, unfortunately the best it could do was vaguely conclude that there is "some degree of relationship" between the goods. On the other hand, the Office acknowledged the existence of nine pairs of nearly identical registered marks for beer and wine, demonstrating how often examiners allowed such simultaneous registrations and suggesting that the goods were not very closely related at all.
Of course, even if beer and wine were always considered highly related (or not), many other factors are to be considered in any particular case. In the REUBEN'S/RUBENS case, for example, the marks were not identical and each had its unique design and stylization. Thus, while the relatedness of the goods alone should never be the determining factor in the likelihood of confusion analysis, it would still be helpful for the Office to speak with more definitiveness on the relationship between beer and wine rather than continue to rely on a case-by-case basis depending on the evidence any particular litigant is able to muster.
The opinions expressed are those of the authors on the date noted above and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fish & Richardson P.C., any other of its lawyers, its clients, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This post is for general information purposes only and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed.
Blog December 9, 2019
Blog July 26, 2019
Heightened Scrutiny of Specimens of Use at U.S. Trademark Office
Blog July 3, 2019
New Rule Requires Foreign-Domiciled Trademark Applicants, Registrants, and Parties at TTAB to Be Represented by U.S. Attorney
Blog April 2, 2018
USPTO Pilot Program Regarding Specimen Authenticity
Blog July 5, 2017
U.S. Trademark Office Clarifies Filing Deadlines for Resurrecting Dead Applications and Registrations
Blog June 8, 2017
Even GOOGLE Can Google After All
Blog May 19, 2017
What Does The "In" in "Incontestable" Mean?
Blog February 7, 2017
U.S. Trademark Office Sharpens Machete for Pruning Deadwood
Blog February 3, 2017
FDA Final Guidance on Nonproprietary Names of Biological Products
Blog December 12, 2022
USPTO Updates Deadline to Respond to Trademark Office Actions
Article August 22, 2022
Principal Vivian Cheng Featured in Law.com Q&A Series "How I Made Partner"
Article June 16, 2022
Principal Cynthia Walden and Associate Sarah Kelleher Author World Intellectual Property Review Article "Selling the Intangible in Fashion: What Does It...
Blog March 8, 2022
The Basics of TTAB Cancellations
Blog November 9, 2021
The Basics of TTAB Oppositions
Blog October 5, 2021
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: September 2021
Article July 23, 2021
Fish Principal Cindy Walden Authors World IP Review Article "Brand Owner's Friend: the Lanham Act at 75"
Q&A June 7, 2021
Q&A with Cynthia Walden for Westlaw
Blog January 19, 2021
Trademark, Copyright Legislation Passed as Part of COVID-19 Relief Bill
Blog December 9, 2020