IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Proposed mark BREWSKI was likely to cause confusion with registered mark BREWSKI BROTHERS, (Jun 1, 2022)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

The marks were used with related goods and the proposed mark was completely encompassed by the registered mark.

A trademark examining attorney proper refused to register the proposed mark BREWSKI on the ground of likelihood of confusion with the registered mark BREWSKI BROTHERS, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has held. The marks were similar, the goods were related, and the trade channels overlapped (In re P&P Imports LLC, May 26, 2022, Goodman, C.).

P&P Imports LLC (P&P) sought registration on the Principal Register of the standard character mark BREWSKI for “equipment sold as a unit for playing drinking games comprised of an apparatus for holding multiple cups” in International Class 28. The Examining Attorney refused registration on the ground of likelihood of confusion with the registered mark BREWSKI BROTHERS (“brothers” disclaimed) for “sport balls” in International Class 28. The Board considered the DuPont factors for which there was evidence of record.

Strength of the mark. P&P argued that the registered mark was weak. The Board found that “brewski,” as a slang term for beer, was suggestive for goods used in connection with beer. The Board also found that the existence of other brewski-formative marks on the Principal Register, as cited by P&P, did not provide a basis for finding that the proposed mark and the registered mark could coexist without confusion, and each case must be decided on its own merits.

Similarity of marks. The Board found that BREWSKI was the dominant term in the BREWSKI BROTHERS mark and was, of course, the entirety of the proposed mark. The additional disclaimed word “brothers” did not significantly change the appearance, pronunciation, meaning, or commercial impression of the registered mark, and indicated only something about the familial nature of the business. This factor weighed in favor of confusion.

Similarity of the goods. The Examining Attorney presented website evidence showing both sports balls and drinking game apparatus sold on the same websites under the same marks. The broad nature of the registration covering “sports balls” would include ping pong balls commonly used in drinking games. As a result, the Board held that the goods were related. This factor weighed in favor of confusion.

Trade channels. The same website evidence as was presented to establish relatedness of the goods showed that there was some overlap of trade channels, as the goods were sold on the same websites.

The Board held that none of the evidence presented on the issues of conditions of sale or actual confusion was entitled to substantial weight, so these factors were treated as neutral. Balancing the factors, the Board affirmed the refusal to register.

The Case is Serial No. 88915014.

Attorneys: Siamak S. Hefazi (P&P Imports LLC) for P&P Imports LLC. Pauline Ha for the USPTO.

Companies: P&P Imports LLC

Cases: Trademark USPTO