IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Refusal to register WISHBONES for casino bar services affirmed, (Dec 15, 2025)

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

Confusion is likely between the applicant’s mark WISHBONES and the registered mark WISHBONE FARMS for restaurant services.

In a non-precedential decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) affirmed the examining attorney’s refusal to register the applicant’s mark WISHBONES for “bar services provided in a casino,” in International Class 43 based on a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark WISHBONE FARMS for restaurant services. Considering the marks in their entireties, the TTAB concluded that the marks WISHBONES and WISHBONE FARMS are similar and the applicant’s mark is likely to be confused with the registered mark because consumers are likely to believe that the services have a common source (In re Caesars License Company, LLC, No. 98083981 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 24, 2025)).

Background. Caesars License Company, LLC (applicant) sought to register the standard-character mark WISHBONES for “bar services provided in a casino,” in International Class 43. The examining attorney refused registration of the applicant’s mark under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act due to a likelihood of confusion with the mark WISHBONE FARMS in standard characters, “FARMS” disclaimed, for “restaurant, catering and restaurant carryout services,” in International Class 43 (Cited Registration). After the refusal was made final, the applicant appealed and requested reconsideration. After the request was denied, the appeal resumed.

Likelihood of confusion. The TTAB, upon considering the DuPont factors for evaluating a likelihood of confusion, found that the first, second, and third DuPont factors weighed in favor of finding a likelihood of confusion.

The TTAB noted that the applicant’s services are “bar services provided in a casino” and the registrant’s services are “restaurant, catering and restaurant carryout services.” The third-party registration and internet evidence provided by the examining attorney supported a finding that bar and restaurant services are often provided together, including on casino properties. Although the applicant has limited its trade channels to casinos and its purchasers presumably to casino patrons, the registrant’s unrestricted registration encompasses bar services rendered in a casino setting to casino patrons. Therefore, the applicant’s “bar services provided in a casino” are closely related to the registrant’s “restaurant, catering and restaurant carryout services” and because the Cited Registration does not contain any limitations, the respective services can both be provided in a casino setting, to the same consumers. Thus, the second and third DuPont factors weighed in favor of likelihood of confusion.

The TTAB found that the marks WISHBONES and WISHBONE FARMS contain the nearly identical word WISHBONE(S), creating similarities in appearance, sound and connotation. The TTAB agreed with the examining attorney that WISHBONE is dominant in the Cited Registration. Further, the word WISHBONE has not been shown to describe any quality or characteristic of the registrant’s services nor is there any showing of commercial or conceptual weakness and it is presumed to be inherently distinctive and source-identifying. The TTAB also noted that the additional word FARMS is a point of differentiation in the marks but it did not create clear and significant differences in connotation of WISHBONE FARMS for “restaurant, catering and restaurant carryout services” and WISHBONES for “bar services provided in a casino” because the marks share the nearly identical, dominant word WISHBONE(S), and the consumers are likely to perceive the marks’ connotations as the same or similar.

Moreover, the evidence provided by the examining attorney showed that there is not such a divide between casino offerings and farm-to-table offerings, that consumers would necessarily believe they have different sources when offered under marks having nearly identical dominant terms. The examining attorney also presented evidence that casinos have embraced “eatertainment,” in which guests seek unique and elevated dining experiences; even casino buffets “have really increased in quality, and food has gone upscale exponentially,” with food cooked fresh several times a day.

Although there are differences, the marks WISHBONES and WISHBONE FARMS feature the nearly identical dominant word WISHBONE(S) which is inherently source-identifying for the registrant’s services and renders the marks similar. Therefore, the TTAB did not find the connotations of the marks so different that consumers are likely to perceive the overall commercial impressions in a markedly different way. Accordingly, the first DuPont factor also weighed in favor of likelihood of confusion.

The TTAB also found that no DuPont factor weighed against likelihood of confusion in this case. Accordingly, balancing the factors, the TTAB determined that confusion is likely between the applicant’s mark and the Cited Registration for their respective identified services. Thus, the refusal to register was affirmed.

The Case is Serial No. 98083981.

Judge: O’Connor, C.

Attorneys: Jeffrey P. Dunning (Greenberg Traurig LLP) for Caesars License Company, LLC. Juna Bell for the USPTO.

Companies: Caesars License Company, LLC

Cases: Trademark USPTO