Please choose a language.


Recent Wine, Beer, and Spirits Decisions by the USPTO TTAB, from On Reserve

Sign Up For Email Updates

Submit your e-mail address to receive new blog posts (Bevlog Beverage Law Blog) and occasional news items – with no spam.

Latest Posts

Bevlog & Articles
Imports and the CBMA

Imports and the CBMA

The Craft Beverage Modernization Act has been big, good and not so confusing news for U.S.-produced alcohol beverages for about...Read More
Yet More Trumpy Libations

Yet More Trumpy Libations

Politics is everywhere lately, and TTB labels are no exception. When I was out in Kentucky last week, somebody showed...Read More
Virginia Lawyers Weekly, Beer Law
Posted In:

Virginia Lawyers Weekly, Beer Law

A few weeks ago Virginia Lawyers Weekly recognized our busy, growing beer law practice. The August 13th article, by Matthew...Read More
Not Approved:  GMO

Not Approved: GMO

In 10 years and 579 posts we've covered so many things approved by TTB. Today, and in the near future,...Read More
More Posts

The USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeals Board (TTAB) recently issued three relevant decisions to the wine, beer, and spirits industries. The decisions are summarized below.

  • In In re Harlequin Enterprises Limited, Serial No. 86761280 (September 7, 2017) [not precedential], Applicant (Harlequin Enterprises Limited, a purveyor of romance novels) sought to register a design mark (similar to a book spine) that contained the terms VINTAGES BY HARLEQUIN (with the term “VINTAGES” disclaimed) for wine in International Class 33. The Examining Attorney originally issued a refusal under 2(d) of the Trademark Act on the grounds that Applicant’s mark resembled prior registration for the mark HARLEQUIN for liqueur. Applicant appealed to the TTAB and argued that its fame in connection with romance novels made the potential confusion between Applicant’s wine and Registrant’s liqueur unlikely. The Board found that the evidence presented by Applicant was “impressive and undisputed” in regard to the fame of the mark HARLEQUIN with respect to romance novels. See id. at 3. While the Board accepted and did not dispute that Applicant’s fame for the mark HARLEQUIN for romance novels, the Board argued that fame did not make confusion unlikely. Further, the Board said that the marks and devices used in promoting Applicant’s wine (which were not reflected in the drawing page for the proposed registration) were irrelevant to the Board’s analysis.

Continued at On Reserve.