IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—T.T.A.B.: Refusal to register SIDECAR SLIDER BAR reversed, (Aug 19, 2025)

By Deirdre Kennedy, J.D.

Despite the services, channels of trade, and classes of consumers being in-part identical, consumers would be able to distinguish Applicant’s marks from the cited marks.

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) reversed the refusal to register SIDECAR SLIDER BAR, finding that the examining attorney erred in finding a likelihood of confusion with the existing marks SIDECAR and SIDECAR SOCIAL. Despite the services, channels of trade, and classes of consumers being in-part identical, the highly suggestive nature of the SIDECAR element and the existence of third-party marketplace use created enough difference between the marks that consumers would be able to distinguish the registrant’s mark from the cited marks (In re Restaurant Concept Management, LLC, Nos. 98051196 and 98051234 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 15, 2025)).

Restaurant Concept Management, LLC (RCM) sought to register the standard character mark SIDECAR SLIDER BAR (“SLIDER BAR” disclaimed) and a composite mark for “Bar services; Catering services; Restaurant services; Restaurant services, including sit-down service of food and take-out restaurant services” in International Class 43.

The Examining Attorney refused registration of RCM’s marks under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), on the ground that the marks would cause confusion with two previously-registered marks: SIDECAR for “restaurant and coffee shop services,” and SIDECAR SOCIAL for bar services ancillary to entertainment services.

RCM timely appealed. The Board considered the appeals together and issued a single decision pertaining to both applications because the two applications presented similar issues of fact and law, and applied the DuPont likelihood of confusion factors.

Similarity of services and trade channels. In looking at the similarity of services and trade channels, the Board found that RCM’s marks and the SIDECAR registration each identify “restaurant services.” The services are therefore in-part identical and therefore, presumably, offered in the same ordinary trade channels, weighing in favor of a finding of likelihood of confusion.

Further, RCM’s marks identifying unrestricted “bar services” are broad enough to include the registrant’s narrower “bar services ancillary to entertainment services.” The services are therefore in-part legally identical, also weighing heavily in favor of a finding of a likelihood of confusion.

Weakness of the cited marks. In determining the strength of the cited marks, the Board considered both the conceptual and commercial strength of the marks. RCM argued that SIDECAR is conceptually weak when used in connection with restaurant and bar services, because it is highly suggestive of a popular cocktail served in bars and restaurants. Commercially, RCM introduced 33 third-party uses of Sidecar used in connection with restaurant and bar services, which the Board found to show a strong degree of marketplace weakness, entitling it to a narrower scope of protection under the sixth DuPont factor. Because it found the mark to be both conceptually and commercially weak, the Board found this factor to weigh heavily against a finding of a likelihood of confusion.

Similarity of the marks. The Board also found RCM’s marks and the cited SIDECAR marks to be sufficiently dissimilar. Given the extensive third-party use of SIDECAR in connection with restaurant services, the Board found that consumers were likely to look to the additional elements to distinguish the marks, even where the additional elements are descriptive or otherwise weak. The addition of SLIDER BAR, although descriptive, served to alter the appearance, meaning, and commercial impression of RCM’s SIDECAR SLIDER BAR mark.

In sum, the Board determined that even though the services were in-part identical and presumed to travel in the same channels of trade and to the same classes of consumers, the highly suggestive nature of the SIDECAR element and the existence of third-party marketplace use created enough difference between the marks that consumers would be able to distinguish RCM’s marks from each of the cited marks making confusion unlikely. The refusal to register the mark was therefore reversed.

The Case is Serial Nos. 98051196 and 98051234.

Judge: Myles, M.

Attorneys: Joanna M. Myers (Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC) for Restaurant Concept Management, LLC. Robert Struck for the USPTO.

Companies: Restaurant Concept Management, LLC

Cases: Trademark USPTO GCNNews