Background
Coors Brewing Company applied to register the mark BLUE MOON (with an associated design) at the USPTO for a brand of beer. The trademark examining attorney refused registration under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act, concluding that the mark was likely to be confused with a registered mark BLUE MOON AND DESIGN owned by a different entity for restaurant services. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) affirmed the refusal, and Coors appealed to the Federal Circuit.
The central question was whether beer — a tangible product — and restaurant services — a service — are sufficiently related that consumers would likely be confused about the source of products bearing the same or similar marks. The TTAB had held that because beer is commonly sold and served in restaurants, the goods and services were related enough to trigger a likelihood-of-confusion bar to registration.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Circuit reversed. Judge Bryson, writing for the court, acknowledged that beer and restaurants often appear in the same commercial context, but held that this general proximity is not sufficient to establish relatedness for trademark purposes. Courts and the TTAB regularly consider whether goods and services are related by asking: would consumers encountering both under the same mark reasonably believe they come from the same source?
The court pointed to the actual state of the marketplace: the number of trademark registrations covering both beer and restaurant services simultaneously was vanishingly small. This empirical evidence showed that it is quite uncommon for a single business entity to operate in both the beer-production and restaurant-services markets under the same mark. Absent evidence that such crossover branding is common in the industry — the “something more” needed to establish relatedness between beer and restaurant services — the TTAB’s refusal could not stand.
The court also reaffirmed that the mere fact that beer is served at restaurants does not make a beer maker’s mark likely to be confused with a restaurant’s mark. The test looks at commercial realities: do consumers actually encounter these products and services in ways that would lead to source confusion? The general co-presence of beer and restaurants in everyday life is not enough to make their marks confusingly similar.
Key Takeaways
- Beer and restaurant services are not inherently related for purposes of a Section 2(d) likelihood-of-confusion refusal; the USPTO must show “something more” than that the industries are adjacent.
- The relative scarcity of companies that simultaneously brand both beer products and restaurant services is relevant evidence that the goods and services are not commercially related in the trademark sense.
- General co-presence of goods or services in the marketplace (e.g., beer being served in restaurants) does not automatically establish relatedness for trademark confusion analysis.
- The “something more” doctrine requires evidence of actual market overlap — such as companies routinely operating in both sectors under the same mark — before an examiner can presume relatedness.
- TTAB examination practice on relatedness must be grounded in commercial reality and marketplace evidence, not abstract assumptions about industry adjacency.
Why It Matters
In re Coors Brewing established an important limiting principle on how the USPTO determines whether goods and services are “related” for likelihood-of-confusion purposes. Without this check, examiners could refuse any alcoholic beverage brand registration simply by pointing to existing restaurant-service marks, making trademark protection in the beverage industry nearly impossible for companies that do not also own restaurants.
The case’s “something more” doctrine has become widely cited in TTAB proceedings and Federal Circuit opinions whenever an examiner or opposer attempts to show that different product categories are related. It establishes that empirical evidence of actual crossover commercial branding must support a relatedness finding, rather than mere theoretical proximity in the supply chain or point of sale. The decision has particular practical importance for consumer goods manufacturers seeking registration against service marks in adjacent industries.