Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> The TTABlog

Intellectual Property Law

: The TTABlog

TTAB Reverses "ANDIAMO" 2(d) Refusal: Insufficient Proof that Wine and Restaurant Services are Related

Reversing a Section 2(d) refusal to register the mark ANDIAMO for wine, the Board found the mark not likely to cause confusion with the identical mark registered for restaurant services. The law requires "something more than that similar or even identical marks are used for food products and for restaurant services." Here, the "something more" was lacking. In re Wente Bros. dba Tamas Estates, Serial No. 77314718 (August 6, 2009) [not precedential].The CCPA's decision in Jacobs v. International Multifoods Corp., 212 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1982), set forth the "something more" requirement.The Examining Attorney contended that restaurants commonly serve wine and that wineries commonly feature restaurants (as does Applicant's winery). Applicant pointed out the lack of evidence that "it is common in the industry for restaurants to offer and sell private label wine named after the restaurant or that either party's wines are served in the other's restaurants...continue to full post

Full post as published by The TTABlog on August 18, 2009 (boomark / email).