Green Crush, a retailer selling juice, smoothie and aguas frescas beverages, has filed a lawsuit alleging that a former Green Crush manager and a former contractor engaged in corporate espionage, asserting that they used the chain’s proprietary information and infringed its trademarks and trade dress to start a competing company. Green Crush, LLC v. Paradise Splash 1, Inc., No. 17-1856 (C.D. Cal., filed October 23, 2017). The complaint alleges that the manager frequently asked senior Green Crush employees about “distribution operations, specific equipment, detailed drink ingredients, the design, placement, setting and layout of drink containers and cups, and the process and recipes used” before leaving to start a competing juice store. Further, Green Crush argues, the manager and contractor solicited Green Crush employees to work for them; allegedly, some of those employees asked “if the store under construction was a [Green Crush] store because it looked just like one.” Seeking…
Tag Archives trademark
A Texas appeals court has held that Mark Anthony Brewing cannot produce and label a house-brand beer for TGI Friday’s restaurants because state law prohibits “overlapping” relationships among alcohol manufacturers, distributors and retailers. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Comm’n v. Mark Anthony Brewing, Inc., No. 16-0039 (Texas Ct. App., entered October 13, 2017). The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) rejected Mark Anthony Brewing's application for approval of the beer labels, which it created as part of a licensing agreement with TGI Friday's, on the grounds that Texas’ “tied-house” statutes prohibit such business relationships. Specifically, TABC found, the agreement violated the part of the administrative code providing that “[n]o application for a label shall be approved which indicates by any statement, design, device, or representation that the malt beverage is a special or private brand brewed or bottled for, or that includes the name, trade name, or trademark of any retailer permittee or…
Jimmy Buffett’s Margaritaville Enterprises, which owns trademarks on the phrase “It’s Five O’Clock Somewhere" and several variations, has challenged The Veteran Beverage Company's application to register "It’s 1700 Hours Somewhere.” Margaritaville Enters. v. Veteran Beverage Co., No. 91236809 (T.T.A.B., filed September 22, 2017). The notice alleges that the trademark application is for beer, which is closely related to Margaritaville’s beverage and bar services marks, and that the only difference is that it shows 5:00 p.m. in military time.
Following a bench trial, a California federal court has ruled that Fetzer Vineyards, Inc.’s “bourbon barrel aged” 1000 Stories red zinfandel wine, which features a sketch of a buffalo on its label, does not infringe the trademark or trade dress of Sazerac Co.’s Buffalo Trace bourbon. Sazerac Co. v. Fetzer Vineyards, Inc., No. 15-4618 (N.D. Cal., entered September 19, 2017). “This case was not close,” the court said. Sazerac “did not establish that Buffalo Trace’s bourbon trade dress was similar to 1000 Stories wine’s. It did not establish that Fetzer intended to infringe at the creation of its product or in its marketing. There was no evidence of actual confusion between the products … and no indication that consumers of 1000 Stories are even aware of Buffalo Trace.” The court had already limited Sazerac’s potential recovery to attorney’s fees after the company failed to provide damage calculations on a timely…
For a second time, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) has granted Frito-Lay North America’s petition for cancellation of Snyder's-Lance Inc.’s application to trademark “Pretzel Crisps,” finding the term is generic. Frito-Lay N. Am.v. Princeton-Vanguard, LLC, No. 91195552 (TTAB, entered September 6, 2017). TTAB initially found "pretzel crisp" to be generic following Frito-Lay's opposition to the application, but the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the decision, holding that TTAB had used an incorrect legal standard for its opinion. On remand, TTAB first considered the genericness of the individual terms then analyzed the whole term, again finding that “the primary significance of the term in the minds of the consuming public is to identify a product rather than to identify a single producer of that product, and that indeed the 'Pretzel Crisps' product may derive from more than one source.” In addition, TTAB ruled that…
The estate of Thelonious Monk has alleged that North Coast Brewing, maker of “Brother Thelonious Belgian Style Abbey Ale,” violated the estate's trademark and publicity rights. Monk v. North Coast Brewing Co. Inc., No. 17-5015 (N.D. Cal., filed Aug. 29, 2017). According to the complaint, the estate verbally granted the brewer the right to use Monk’s name, image and likeness “for the limited purpose of marketing and distributing” the ale in exchange for the brewer’s agreement to donate a portion of the profits to the Thelonious Monk Institute of Jazz at the University of California, Los Angeles, but later revoked the rights in 2016. The estate alleges North Coast has exceeded its rights by using the musician’s name or likeness on other merchandise, including cups, hats, hoodies or posters. Alleging trademark infringement, right of publicity and unjust enrichment, the estate seeks an injunction, profits attributable to the alleged violations, damages…
In-N-Out Burgers has filed a lawsuit alleging consumers are likely to confuse Smashburger’s “Triple Double” hamburger with In-N-Out’s “Double-Double,” “Triple Triple” and “Quad Quad.” In-N-Out Burgers v. Smashburger IP Holder LLC, No. 17-1474 (C.D. Cal., filed August 28, 2017). In-N-Out asserts use of the marks “Double-Double” and “Triple Triple” since the early 1960s to designate hamburgers and cheeseburgers. The complaint alleges that In-N-Out is “widely known for providing variations of its menu items to customize orders” and that customers regularly mix the menu names "to form names to customize orders, including ‘Triple Double.’” Claiming trademark infringement, unfair competition and dilution under federal and state laws, In-N-Out seeks an injunction and damages. The chain has also filed a notice of opposition to Smashburger’s application for registration for a “Triple Double” mark, claiming priority, likelihood of confusion and dilution by blurring.
Red Bull GmbH has filed a notice of opposition with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) alleging that a mark used by Bull By The Horns Fitness is too similar to its own name, mark and logo. Red Bull GmbH v. Bull By The Horns Fitness, No. 91236158 (TTAB, filed August 16, 2017). The fitness club applied for a mark that shows a man holding a sideways-facing charging bull, while Red Bull’s marks also show a sideways-facing charging bull. Red Bull argues that its mark has been extensively used in sports and fitness promotion and training services and opposes the application for likelihood of confusion, dilution and false suggestion of a connection. Issue 645
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) has affirmed a refusal to grant Empire Technology Development a trademark for “coffee flour,” finding “clear evidence of generic use” of the term. In re Empire Tech. Dev. LLC, Serial No. 85876688 (TTAB, entered August 3, 2017). The company, which created the flour from ground coffee cherry skins, pulp and pectin, claimed first use of the mark in 2012. TTAB found that Empire “failed to develop and promulgate a generic term other than ‘coffee flour’ and to educate the public to use some other name” and used coffee flour as a generic term in its advertising materials and in media coverage. To allow trademark protection for a generic term, even when identified with a first user, would grant the owner a monopoly because a competitor could not describe the product as what it is, the board said. Moreover, the board said Empire’s failure…
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has reversed a refusal to register “The Cannibal” as a mark for beer to Iron Hill Brewery, finding little likelihood of confusion between the beer and a restaurant called “The Cannibal Beer & Butcher.” In re Iron Hill Brewery, No. 86682532 (TTAB, entered July 28, 2017). The board found that Cannibal Beer & Butcher failed to show that consumers would be confused by Iron Hill's use of "Cannibal" because the beer product that the brewery provides is different from the restaurant services provided by Cannibal Beer & Butcher. "In light of the large number of restaurants in the United States, the facts that a single mark is sometimes used [to] identify restaurant services and beer, that some restaurants are associated with breweries, and that restaurants may sell beer are not sufficient to establish a relationship between restaurant…
