When evaluating a trademark application for “Bar and restaurant services” in view of a trademark registration for “alcoholic beverages” such as distilled spirits, for purposes of Section 2(d)-- “something more,” evidence-wise, is required than having potentially conflicting marks that are used for “bar and restaurant services” and “alcoholic beverages.” See In re Coors Brewing Co., 343 F.3d 1340, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (a decision about the relatedness of restaurant services and beer); Jacobs v. Int'l Multifoods Corp., 668 F.2d 1234, 1236 (CCPA 1982) (holding that a finding of relatedness between food and restaurant services requires “something more” than the fact that restaurants serve food). 

“Something more” is required because, “in light of the very large number of restaurants in this country and the great variety in the names associated with those restaurants, the potential consequences of adopting such a principle would be to limit dramatically the number of marks that could be used by producers of foods and beverages.” In re Coors, 343 F.3d at 1346. 

There is no per se rule that certain goods are related, such as restaurant services and food and beverages. Lloyd's Food Prods., Inc. v. Eli's, Inc., 987 F.2d 766, 768 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing Jacobs, 668 F.2d at 1236). 

But the "something more" requirement can be met when, for example, an applicant's mark clearly demonstrates its restaurant specializes in the registrant's type of goods. See, e.g., In re Accelerate s.a.l., 2012 TTAB LEXIS 43, at *8-12 (TTAB 2012) (COLOMBIANO and COLOMBIAN, both meaning “from Columbia,” a country known for its coffee beans; applicant's “providing food and drink” services found related to registrant's “coffee”); In re Azteca Rest. Enters. Inc., 1999 TTAB LEXIS 29, at *8 (TTAB 1997) (“Mexican food items are often principal items or entrees served by restaurants, certainly by Mexican restaurants. The average consumer, therefore, would be likely to view Mexican food items and Mexican restaurant services as emanating from or sponsored by the same source if such goods and services are sold under the same or substantially similar marks.”). 
“Something more” also may be found when the cited mark is particularly strong. See, e.g., In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 1988 TTAB LEXIS 11, at *5-7 (TTAB 1988) (no evidence of registrations of marks containing the term “Mucky Duck” for mustard, restaurant services, or any other goods or services; marks at issue were substantially similar, and registrant's mark for restaurant services was “particularly unique,” “memorable,” and “strong” in nature); see also In re Opus One, Inc., 2001 TTAB LEXIS 707, at *4-5 (TTAB 2001) (“something more” found where registrant's OPUS ONE mark was “strong and arbitrary” and entitled to a broad scope of protection; registrant's OPUS ONE wine was sold in applicant's restaurant as well).

The TTAB recently affirmed a Section 2(d) refusal to register the UGLY DOG SALOON mark for “Bar and restaurant services; catering services” (with “saloon” disclaimed), in view of the registered UGLY DOG mark for “alcoholic beverages, namely, distilled spirits; alcoholic cocktail mixes.” In re Saloon Promotions, Inc., Ser. No. 90849904 (TTAB Aug. 28, 2024).

The TTAB found that the registered UGLY DOG mark was inherently or conceptually strong because it was arbitrary, and thus entitled to a broad scope of protection. See Nautilus Grp., Inc. v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 372 F.3d 1330, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (defining an arbitrary mark as a “known word used in an unexpected or uncommon way” and observing that such marks are typically strong). 

In addition to the inherent strength of the registered UGLY DOG mark satisfying the “something more” requirement, the TTAB also noted that there were other numerous existing registrations showing that the same entity has registered a single mark for catering, bar, or restaurant services, as well as alcoholic beverages, distilled spirits, or alcoholic cocktail mixes. The record also included third-party Internet websites showing that the same entity offers “bar and restaurant services” or catering services under a mark, and manufactures, produces, or offers for sale distilled spirits under the same mark. Thus, the TTAB found that the “alcoholic” goods and the “bar” services were complementary. 

The TTAB also noted that the definition of the word “saloon” in the applied-for mark means “a place where alcoholic drinks are sold and drunk; a tavern.” 

Accordingly, the TTAB concluded that the evidence of record here meets the “something more” requirement. 

The TTABlog suggested that “in these restaurant/alcoholic beverage cases, your only hope of winning is to weaken the cited mark through third-party evidence and then distinguish the two marks.”