IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Refusal to register applicant’s mark GOOD TIMES for bourbon reversed, (Mar 26, 2026)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

The TTAB found the applicant’s mark and the registered marks sufficiently dissimilar in structure, meaning and overall commercial impression, notwithstanding any similarities in sound and appearance due to the shared wording GOOD TIMES.

In a non-precedential decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) reversed an examining attorney’s refusal to register the applicant’s mark GOOD TIMES for “bourbon” under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act on the ground of likelihood of confusion with five registered marks. The TTAB concluded that the first and sixth DuPont factors were pivotal and outweighed the legal identity of the goods, as well as the presumed identical trade channels and classes of purchasers (In re Genuine Risk, No. 90170906 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2026)).

Background. Genuine Risk (applicant) sought to register on the Principal Register the standard character mark GOOD TIMES for “bourbon” in International Class 33. The examining attorney refused to register the proposed mark under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act on the ground of likelihood of confusion with five registered marks all owned by different registrants. When the refusal was made final, the applicant appealed.

Likelihood of confusion. The TTAB, upon considering the DuPont factors for evaluating a likelihood of confusion, found that confusion was unlikely. The TTAB noted that any of the DuPont factors may play a dominant role, and in some cases, a single factor may be dispositive.

The TTAB found that the registered marks and the applicant’s mark are somewhat similar visually and aurally in light of the shared wording GOOD TIMES. However, the similarity of the marks ends there. The TTAB found that, contrary to the examining attorney’s arguments, the registered marks have differing connotations and overall commercial impressions when compared to the applicant’s mark when viewing the registered marks in their entirety. The structure and distinctive sentiments expressed in each of the registered marks are absent from the applicant’s mark. For example, the registered mark GUARD THE GOOD TIMES connotes protecting the good times one is experiencing. Further, the cited mark LET THE GOOD TIMES ROLL suggests that one should keep on having a good time. These connotations and commercial impressions are not present in the applicant’s mark. Moreover, given that the registered marks use “GOOD TIMES” as part of an overall distinctive phrase, the TTAB found it unlikely that consumers will view the applicant’s mark as a shortened form of any of the registered marks. Thus, the applicant’s mark and the cited marks are sufficiently dissimilar in structure, meaning and overall commercial impression, notwithstanding any similarities in sound and appearance due to the shared wording GOOD TIMES. Therefore, the first DuPont factor weighed against finding a likelihood of confusion.

The TTAB found that the five cited registrations employ broad wording to identify their respective goods, i.e., “alcoholic beverages, except beer(s),” “distilled spirits,” and “whiskey.” The broad identifications in each of the five cited registrations encompass the applicant’s more narrowly defined goods. Thus, the goods are legally identical. Accordingly, the second DuPont factor strongly favored a finding of likelihood of confusion.

The TTAB noted that as the applicant’s and the registrants’ goods are legally identical and there are no restrictions as to trade channels or classes of purchasers in any of the cited registrations or the involved application, these legally identical goods are provided in the same trade channels and are offered to the same classes of purchasers. Therefore, the third DuPont factor also weighed heavily in favor of finding a likelihood of confusion.

Under the sixth DuPont factor, the TTAB found that the record evidence showed that the term GOOD TIMES is conceptually weak when used in connection with alcoholic beverages. Here, the applicant did not submit any third-party registrations. Instead, it relied solely on the cited registrations, as well as its own registration for the mark CASA GOOD TIMES, to support its argument: that the wording “GOOD TIMES” is conceptually weak and diluted because it is suggestive of the merriment consumers anticipate enjoying when imbibing alcoholic beverages. The TTAB agreed with the applicant. Further, the TTAB noted that the cited GOOD TIMES-formative marks themselves, each of which is combined with other terms and each of which covers one or more pertinent alcoholic beverages, show that marks containing the term GOOD TIMES for alcoholic beverages can be distinguished by additional matter and/or the differing connotations conveyed in light of the conceptual weakness of the “GOOD TIMES” element. Accordingly, the TTAB found that the cited registrations demonstrated that the wording GOOD TIMES, when used in association with alcoholic beverages, is conceptually weak, thereby undermining this wording as an indicator of a single source.

The TTAB found that while the evidence of record did not establish that the wording GOOD TIMES in the cited registrations is commercially weak, the record did show that use of the wording GOOD TIMES in marks used in connection with alcoholic beverages has a commonly understood suggestive meaning and, therefore, this component of the cited registrations is conceptually weak. In light of this conceptual weakness, the GOOD TIMES component of each of the cited marks to have a limited scope of protection. Thus, the sixth DuPont factor favored a finding that confusion is not likely.

In sum, the TTAB concluded that the first and sixth DuPont factors to be pivotal and together prevail over the legal identity of the goods under the second DuPont factor, as well as the presumed identical trade channels and classes of purchasers under the third DuPont factor. Accordingly, the refusal to register the applicant’s mark under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act was reversed.

The Case is Serial No. 90170906.

Judge: Pologeorgis, G.

Attorneys: Jack A. Wheat (McBrayer PLLC) for Genuine Risk. Benjamin Rosen for the USPTO.

Cases: Trademark USPTO