Goods Relatedness In Trademark Law – Coffee and Alcohol

Are Coffee, Wine, and Hard Cider Related Goods In Trademark Law?

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) may refuse to register a trademark if it is likely to cause confusion with an existing trademark. One of the key factors in this determination is the relatedness of the goods or services associated with the trademarks. The question of whether goods are related does not depend on whether they are identical but rather on whether consumers would believe they originate from the same source.

A recent examination of USPTO decisions provides insight into how the agency evaluates the relatedness of certain goods, specifically coffee in International Class 30 and wine or hard cider in International Class 33. Two non-precedential opinions—In re Black Ink Coffee Company, LLC (serial number 88570051) and In re Cooper Moon Coffee LLC (serial number 88064160)—illustrate how examining attorneys and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) assess these issues.

Likelihood of Confusion and the Relatedness of Goods

Under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act, the USPTO examines trademark applications to determine whether a likelihood of confusion exists between the applied-for trademark and an existing registration.

The two primary considerations are:

• Similarity of the trademarks – Whether the marks are similar in appearance, sound, connotation, or commercial impression.
• Similarity of the goods or services – Whether the goods or services are related in such a way that consumers would assume they originate from the same source.

For a refusal based on likelihood of confusion, the goods do not have to be identical. They only need to be related in a way that could cause consumer confusion as to their origin.

Coffee and Wine: A Case Study in Relatedness

In re Black Ink Coffee Company, LLC, the applicant sought to register “BLACK INK” for coffee-related goods in Class 30. However, the application was refused based on an existing registration for “BLACK INK” covering wine in Class 33. The examining attorney argued that the goods were related because:

• Evidence from third-party businesses demonstrated that coffee and wine are often sold under the same brand name.
• Several third-party registrations covered both coffee and wine under the same mark, suggesting that the two products are commonly associated with the same source.
• Both products are sold in overlapping retail environments, including specialty food stores and online marketplaces.

The TTAB upheld the refusal to register the trademark, reasoning that even though coffee and wine are distinct beverages, their shared presence in the specialty beverage market, the existence of dual-use trademarks, and their common marketing channels (or channels of trade) contributed to a likelihood of confusion.

The applicant attempted to argue that alcoholic beverages such as wine should be treated as distinct from coffee, citing past cases where the TTAB found certain alcoholic beverages to be unrelated. However, the TTAB emphasized that each case must be evaluated based on the specific evidence presented. The USPTO’s evidence was deemed sufficient to support a finding that coffee and wine are related goods.

Coffee and Hard Cider: A Similar Outcome

In re Cooper Moon Coffee LLC, the trademark applicant sought to register the mark “BEAN BLOSSOM” (two words) for coffee, but the application was refused based on a prior registration for “BEANBLOSSOM” (one word) covering hard cider. Although coffee and hard cider differ in their composition and purpose, the USPTO again found them to be related.

Several factors contributed to this determination:

• Third-party registrations demonstrated that the same businesses often sell coffee and alcoholic beverages, including hard cider.
• Some producers incorporate coffee into their alcoholic beverages, including coffee-flavored hard ciders, further linking the two markets.
• Both coffee and hard cider appeal to similar consumer demographics, particularly those interested in craft and artisanal beverages.

The TTAB noted that coffee and hard cider are both consumed by adults, reinforcing the idea that they could reasonably be associated with the same brand.  Despite the trademark applicant’s argument that hard cider and coffee serve distinct purposes—one being a stimulant and the other a depressant—the Board found that marketplace realities supported the relatedness of the goods.

Legal Takeaways for Trademark Applicants

These decisions highlight important considerations for businesses seeking to register trademarks:

• Broad Trademark Protection – The USPTO often interprets relatedness broadly, particularly in cases involving food and beverage products. Even if two products are not directly competing, their presence in overlapping retail spaces can support a refusal.
• Third-Party Evidence Matters – Examining attorneys frequently rely on third-party registrations and marketplace evidence to support their findings. If many companies register the same mark for both coffee and alcoholic beverages, this trend can be used as evidence of relatedness.
• Marketplace Perception is Key – The key inquiry is not whether the goods are the same but whether consumers would expect them to come from the same source. If a single company is known to sell both goods, this strengthens the case for relatedness.
• Avoiding Likelihood of Confusion – Businesses should conduct comprehensive trademark searches before filing applications. If a similar mark exists for a related product, even in a different class, there may be a risk of refusal.

Conclusion

The cases of Black Ink Coffee Company and Cooper Moon Coffee LLC illustrate how the USPTO determines the relatedness of goods in likelihood of confusion analyses. While coffee, wine, and hard cider may seem distinct at first glance, the USPTO’s approach recognizes the realities of modern branding, where companies often expand their offerings across beverage categories.

For businesses navigating the trademark registration process, understanding these principles can help shape their strategy, whether by adjusting their branding, negotiating coexistence agreements, or preparing persuasive arguments to overcome refusals.