SQUAREPEG BREWERKS Denied Registration Due to Likelihood of Confusion

Square Peg Brewerks LLC, a company specializing in bar and taproom services, encountered a roadblock in their request for trademark registration. The mark they sought, SQUAREPEG BREWERKS, was rejected due to potential confusion with the registered mark SQUARE PEG, which is associated with wines. Despite appealing the decision and filing for reconsideration, the court's decision remained unchanged. Here we will delve into the detailed examination by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) regarding the likelihood of confusion between the two marks in this trademark dispute.

The Examination Process

The trademark examining attorney initially rejected the registration of the mark SQUAREPEG BREWERKS, citing the potential for confusion with the already existing mark SQUARE PEG. Square Peg Brewerks LLC subsequently appealed the decision to the TTAB for further consideration. During the examination process, the TTAB reviewed the evidence provided by both parties and established that only timely-introduced evidence would be taken into account.

To evaluate the potential confusion between the marks, the TTAB applied the DuPont factors, which consider several aspects, including appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. The TTAB observed that the term "SQUAREPEG" held significant prominence in the applicant's mark and that the addition of the descriptive term "BREWERKS," which had been disclaimed, did not make a meaningful difference. Consequently, the TTAB concluded that the similarity in appearance and composition made it likely for consumers to perceive the applicant's mark as an extension of the registrant's brand, SQUARE PEG.

To bolster its decision, the TTAB referenced various examples of third-party marks used in the wine and bar services industries. This additional evidence further supported the likelihood of confusion between the two marks in question. Importantly, the TTAB disregarded the specific type of beer offered by the applicant, as their identification covered bar and taproom services without limitation. This emphasized the probative value of such registrations in suggesting a single source for related goods and services.

Despite the applicant's request for reconsideration and the submission of third-party registration evidence, the TTAB rejected their plea. The marks were considered highly similar, and there was a substantial likelihood of confusion among consumers regarding the associated goods and services.