Caesars License Company, LLC

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Mailed: November 24, 2025
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Caesars License Company, LLC
_____
Serial No. 98083981
_____
Jeffrey P. Dunning, Greenberg Traurig LLP, for Caesars License Company, LLC.
Juna Bell,1 Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 133,
Laurie Kaufman, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Goodman, Thurmon and O’Connor,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by O’Connor, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Caesars License Company, LLC (“Applicant”) seeks to register the standard-
character mark WISHBONES for “bar services provided in a casino,” in International
Class 43.2
1 The application was reassigned from the original Examining Attorney for purposes of this
appeal. We refer to both Examining Attorneys as “the Examining Attorney.”
2 Application Serial No. 98083981 was filed on July 13, 2023, under Section 1(b) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), based on Applicant’s allegation of a bona fide intent to
use the mark in commerce.
Citations to the prosecution file are to entries in the USPTO’s Trademark Status & Document
Retrieval (“TSDR”) system in .pdf format. Citations to the appeal record are to TTABVUE,
the Board’s online docketing system.

Serial No. 98083981
- 2 -
The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration under Section 2(d) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), due to a likelihood of confusion with the mark
WISHBONE FARMS in standard characters, “FARMS” disclaimed, for “restaurant,
catering and restaurant carryout services,” in International Class 43 (the “Cited
Registration” or “Cited Mark”).3
When the refusal was made final, Applicant appealed and requested
reconsideration, which was denied. The appeal was resumed, has been fully briefed
and is ready for decision. We affirm the refusal to register.
Likelihood of Confusion
“The Trademark Act prohibits registration of a mark that so resembles a
registered mark as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods or
services of the applicant, to cause confusion, mistake, or to deceive.” In re Charger
Ventures LLC, 64 F.4th 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (cleaned up). Our determination
of the issue of likelihood of confusion is based on analysis of all of the probative facts
in evidence that are relevant to the factors set forth in In re E.I. DuPont de Nemours
& Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361 (CCPA 1973) (the “DuPont factors”). We consider each
DuPont factor for which there is evidence and argument. See, e.g., In re Guild Mortg.
Co., 912 F.3d 1376, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Varying weight may be assigned to each DuPont factor depending on the evidence
presented. See In re Charger Ventures, 64 F.4th at 1381 (“In any given case, different
DuPont factors may play a dominant role and some factors may not be relevant to the
3 Registration No. 6441669 issued on August 3, 2021 on the Principal Register.

Serial No. 98083981
- 3 -
analysis.”) (citation omitted). In determining likelihood of confusion, two key
considerations are the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks and the similarity or
dissimilarity of the goods or services. In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165
(Fed. Cir. 2002)); Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098,
1103 (CCPA 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry mandated by § 2(d) goes to the
cumulative effect of differences in the essential characteristics of the goods [and
services] and differences in the marks.”).
A. Similarity or Dissimilarity of the Services, Channels of Trade and
Consumers
Under the second and third DuPont factors, we consider “[t]he similarity or
dissimilarity and nature of the goods or services as described in an application or
registration” and the “similarity or dissimilarity of established, likely-to-continue
trade channels.” DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361. With each factor, our determination must
be based not on evidence of use, but on the identification of goods or services in the
Application and Cited Registration. See, e.g., In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297,
1307 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The services need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of
confusion, but must be “‘related in some manner and/or if the circumstances
surrounding their marketing are such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief
that [the goods and services] emanate from the same source.’” In re Country Oven,
Inc., No. 87354443, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 381, at *4-5 (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v.
Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Evidence that “a single

Serial No. 98083981
- 4 -
company sells the goods [or services] ... of both parties, if presented, is relevant to a
relatedness analysis.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261,
1267 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
As indicated above, Applicant’s services are “bar services provided in a casino” and
Registrant’s services are “restaurant, catering and restaurant carryout services.” In
support of relatedness, the Examining Attorney provided over twenty third-party
use-based registrations covering both bar services and restaurant, catering and/or
restaurant carryout services.4 The Examining Attorney also made of record Internet
evidence showing third parties that offer both bar and restaurant services under the
same mark.5 The third-party registration and Internet evidence supports a finding
that bar services and restaurant, catering and carryout services are of a type that
commonly emanate from the same source, often under the same mark. See, e.g., In re
Country Oven, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 381, at *15. Indeed, the evidence shows that bar
and restaurant services are often provided together, including on casino properties.6
Cf. In re Binion, No. 76590702, 2009 TTAB LEXIS 701, at *13 (finding that
applicant’s “casino and gaming” and “hotel and bar” services were closely related to
4 January 11, 2024 Nonfinal Office Action, TSDR at 9-27 (attaching copies of Registration
Nos. 5165418, 5909445, 5134098, 6180079, 7259497, 6046973, 5249713, 7037747, 6613452
and 5456119); October 25, 2024 Final Office Action, TSDR at 8-39 (attaching copies of
registrations including Registration Nos. 3267453, 6950032, 3766907, 3702348, 5687221,
6131016, 7243165, 4877290, 3292812, 6888515, 7014381, 3436753, 7214421 and 4873484).
5 January 11, 2024 Nonfinal Office Action, TSDR at 28-41; October 25, 2024 Final Office
Action, TSDR at 40-90, 116-26.
6 See, e.g., April 7, 2025 Denial of Request for Reconsideration, TSDR at 8-10 (Wolfgang Puck
Bar & Grill located within MGM Grand Hotel & Casino); 21-25 (Mandalay Bay Resort and
Casino offerings include Border Grill restaurant, House of Blues Restaurant & Bar and Ri
Ra Irish Pub).

Serial No. 98083981
- 5 -
registrant’s “restaurant services”). In view of the foregoing, we find that the
respective services are closely related.
Applicant’s services are only offered in casinos, but Registrant’s services are not
limited as to channel of trade or class of consumer and we therefore must presume
that Registrant’s services move in all of the normal trade channels to all of the normal
consumers. See, e.g., Coach Servs., 668 F.3d at 1370; In re Elbaum, 1981 TTAB LEXIS
68, at *3. Registrant’s services “thus must be construed to encompass all types of
restaurant services, including stand-alone restaurants as well as restaurants that
may be located within a hotel or casino.” In re Binion, 2009 TTAB LEXIS 70, at *10;
see also In re Midwest Gaming & Entm’t LLC, No. 85111552, 2013 TTAB LEXIS 55,
at *6-7 (“[A]lthough applicant has limited its trade channels to casinos and its
purchasers presumably to casino patrons, registrant’s unrestricted registration
encompasses bar services rendered in a casino setting to casino patrons.”).
Here, “Applicant acknowledges that bar services and restaurant services are
commercially related”7 and does not take the position on appeal that the trade
channels or classes of consumers differ.
The second and third DuPont factors weigh in favor of likelihood of confusion.
B. Similarity or Dissimilarity of the Marks
We turn now to the first DuPont factor, which compares the marks “in their
entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.” In re
7 6 TTABVUE 7 n.2; see also 9 TTABVUE 8 (reply brief stating that Applicant does not
dispute that the services are related for purposes of the second DuPont factor).

Serial No. 98083981
- 6 -
Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d at 1303 (quoting DuPont, 476 F.3d at 1361). “Similarity
in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.”
In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, No. 87075988, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 170, at *13 (quoting
In re Davia, No. 85497617, 2014 TTAB LEXIS 214, at *4). In considering the marks,
we focus “on the recollection of the average customer, who retains a general rather
than specific impression of the marks.” Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, No.
91196527, 2014 TTAB LEXIS 166, at *17-18 (citations omitted). “[S]imilarity is not a
binary factor but is a matter of degree.” In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 752
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).
Our analysis cannot be predicated on dissecting the marks into their various
components; that is, our finding must be based on the entire marks, not just part of
the marks. In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also In re
Electrolyte Labs., Inc., 929 F.2d 645, 647 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“No element of a mark is
ignored simply because it is less dominant, or would not have trademark significance
if used alone.”) (citation omitted). Nonetheless, “in articulating reasons for reaching
a conclusion on the issue of confusion, there is nothing improper in stating that, for
rational reasons, more or less weight has been given to a particular feature of a mark,
provided the ultimate conclusion rests on consideration of the marks in their
entireties.” In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d at 1305 (quoting In re Nat’l Data Corp.,
753 F.2d at 1058).
In refusing registration, the Examining Attorney reasoned that the marks are
similar because they both contain the essentially identical term WISHBONE(S),

Serial No. 98083981
- 7 -
which of the two words in the Cited Mark is more significant or dominant in creating
a commercial impression because the word FARMS is disclaimed.8 In maintaining
the refusal, the Examining Attorney considered Applicant’s argument that the marks
are not similar due to the additional word FARMS, but was not persuaded. The
Examining Attorney noted that although Applicant’s mark omitted “FARMS,” it did
not add any distinguishing matter that would create a different commercial
impression, such that WISHBONES “is likely to appear to prospective purchasers as
a shortened form of registrant’s mark.”9 The Examining Attorney presented evidence
that farm-to-table restaurants are desirable for sustainable or cleaner dining, with
consumers now accustomed to farms being associated with restaurants, such that the
“presence of FARMS in the registrant’s mark does not change the commercial
impression of the marks because consumers may perceive WISHBONE FARMS as
being related to WISHBONES but provided on a farm or featuring food from farms.”10
Applicant argues that this reasoning improperly dissected the Cited Mark and failed
to account for the “unique and desirable connotation” that “FARMS” has for
restaurant services and its effect on how consumers are likely to perceive
“WISHBONE” in the Cited Mark which it asserts “creates a very different
connotation from Applicant’s one-word mark viewed in relation to bar services.”11
8 January 11, 2024 Nonfinal Office Action, TSDR at 3; October 25, 2025 Final Office Action,
TSDR at 4.
9 October 25, 2025 Final Office Action, TSDR at 6 (citing inter alia In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601
F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).
10 October 25, 2025 Final Office Action, TSDR at 6.
11 6 TTABVUE 7-8.

Serial No. 98083981
- 8 -
The marks WISHBONES and WISHBONE FARMS contain the nearly identical
word WISHBONE(S),12 creating similarities in appearance, sound and connotation.
We agree with the Examining Attorney that WISHBONE is dominant in the Cited
Mark. The word WISHBONE has not been shown to describe any quality or
characteristic of Registrant’s services nor is there any showing of commercial or
conceptual weakness and it is presumed to be inherently distinctive and source-
identifying. See Tea Bd. of India v. Republic of Tea, Inc., No. 91118587, 2006 TTAB
LEXIS 330, at *62 (absent claim of acquired distinctiveness, under Trademark Act
Section 7(b), 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b), mark registered on Principal Register is presumed
to be inherently distinctive); cf. In re Chippendales USA, Inc., 622 F.3d 1346, 1352
(Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[I]f the mark is inherently distinctive, it is presumed that
consumers will view it as a source identifier.”).
Registrant disclaimed the word “FARMS,” conceding that it is merely descriptive
and has less source-identifying significance. See, e.g., In re Six Continents Ltd., No.
88430142, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 35, at *22-23. Although not disregarded in our analysis,
descriptive terms are often considered less significant or less dominant when
comparing marks. See, e.g., In re Chatam Int’l, 380 F.3d 1340, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2004).13
12 As noted by the Examining Attorney, the plural “WISHBONES” in Applicant’s mark is not
materially different from the singular word “WISHBONE” in the Cited Mark. See, e.g., Wilson
v. Delaunay, 245 F.2d 877, 878 (CCPA 1957) (finding “no material difference, in a trademark
sense, between the singular and plural forms of the word ‘Zombie’”); Swiss Grill Ltd. v. Wolf
Steel Ltd., No. 91206859, 2015 TTAB LEXIS 312, at *35 n.17 (singular and plural of SWISS
GRILL deemed “virtually identical”).
13 Applicant questions whether FARMS is truly descriptive here because it “does not
immediately identify any feature or characteristic of a restaurant or the food served therein,
but rather only vaguely suggests some unspecified connection between the restaurant and
agriculture.” 9 TTABVUE 4 n.2. Even so, that FARMS has less source-identifying

Serial No. 98083981
- 9 -
FARMS is also less significant because WISHBONE is the first term in the Cited
Mark, and consumers are generally more inclined to focus on and remember the first
word, prefix, or syllable in a mark. See Palm Bay Imps. Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot
Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Veuve” is
the most prominent part of the mark VEUVE CLICQUOT because it is the first word
in the mark and the first word to appear on the label). Thus, the word WISHBONE
in the Cited Mark is dominant in our analysis.
As for connotation, Applicant argues that the word FARMS in the Cited Mark
suggests that Registrant’s services are associated with a farm with consumers likely
to perceive WISHBONE FARMS as referring to a specific location—i.e., a farm—real
or fictional, where Registrant provides its services or sources food, a connotation that
is absent from Applicant’s Mark.14 The term WISHBONE in the Cited Mark,
therefore, Applicant argues, would be perceived as either the name of the farm or as
referring to farm animals such as turkeys or chickens, which have a bone called a
wishbone.15 In contrast, Applicant argues that its mark WISHBONES has a very
significance than WISHBONE in the Cited Mark is supported by Applicant’s evidence of
other marks containing the word FARMS registered for restaurant services, see infra.
14 6 TTABVUE 6-7. We cannot help but note that Applicant characterizes the significance of
FARMS differently depending on the argument. See 9 TTABVUE 4 n.2 (FARMS arguably not
descriptive in the Cited Mark because it “only vaguely suggests some unspecified connection
between the restaurant and agriculture”); 9 TTABVUE 8 (“Unlike for a restaurant where the
term ‘FARMS’ has a clear and desirable connotation, the term ‘FARMS’ would be entirely
incongruous in relation to a casino bar….”); see also 6 TTABVUE 4 (the Cited Mark “clearly
connotes a place”).
15 Id. at 6 and n.1 (citing MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY definition of “wishbone” as “a
forked bone in front of the breastbone in a bird consisting chiefly of the two clavicles fused at
their median or lower end”); June 10, 2024 Petition to Revive, TSDR at 13.

Serial No. 98083981
- 10 -
different connotation when used with casino bar services, either being arbitrary,
suggesting the name of a person (such as the bar’s owner),16 or conveying the concept
of good luck while gambling “just as getting the bigger half of the Thanksgiving
turkey wishbone is reputed to bring good luck.”17
The additional word FARMS is a point of differentiation in the marks. But we do
not agree with Applicant that it creates clear and significant differences in
connotation of WISHBONE FARMS for “restaurant, catering and restaurant
carryout services” and WISHBONES for “bar services provided in a casino.” Because
the marks share the nearly identical, dominant word WISHBONE(S), consumers are
likely to perceive the marks’ connotations as the same or similar.
Moreover, evidence provided by the Examining Attorney shows that there is not
such a divide between casino offerings and farm-to-table offerings that consumers
would necessarily believe they have different sources when offered under marks
having nearly identical dominant terms. The Examining Attorney provided evidence
that casinos have embraced “eatertainment,” in which guests seek unique and
elevated dining experiences; even casino buffets “have really increased in quality, and
food has gone upscale exponentially,” with food cooked fresh several times a day.18
16 6 TTABVUE 7.
17 9 TTABVUE 6. Applicant made this argument for the first time in its reply brief. During
prosecution, Applicant pressed an alternative connotation relating to midcentury modern bar
stools having a “wishbone” design. See June 10, 2024 Petition to Revive, TSDR at 9-10, 18-
80. Applicant does not mention the chair design argument on appeal and we therefore do not
consider it.
18 April 7, 2025 Denial of Request for Reconsideration, TSDR at 61-68 (article on
www.fsmagazine.com); see also id. at 4-6 (website for Hollywood Casino at Charles Town

Serial No. 98083981
- 11 -
“To stay relevant, restaurants within these establishments need to think about the
trends of tomorrow.”19 Although not tied to the casino setting, there is evidence of a
trend of restaurants featuring farm-to-table offerings, such that consumers are likely
to perceive FARMS as having a general connotation when used with restaurant,
catering and carryout services. Farm-to-table offerings can include both food and
drink,20 with the evidence showing one provider of restaurant services on a farm,
Great Country Farms, that has “sister sites just up the road: Henway Hard Cider
Company, Bluemont Vineyard, and Dirt Farm Brewing, all featuring homegrown
boozy beverages.”21
The Examining Attorney did not ignore the word FARMS or its effect on the
connotation and overall commercial impression of WISHBONE FARMS, but
Races states that the executive chef overseeing its seven restaurants “is proud that now many
people come to the property just for the remarkable dining…”).
19 Id. at 64. The evidence shows that casinos offer restaurants and carryout options that are
also available outside the casino setting. See id. at 40-46 (Nobu), 50-51, 54 (Dunkin’ Donuts),
87 (Papa John’s).
20 See, e.g., October 25, 2024 Final Office Action, TSDR at 135-37 (website of Founding
Farmers, a farmer-owned restaurant group “committed to creating delicious and sustainable
food and drink” urges consumers to let us “take you back to the roots of good food & drink:
high-quality ingredients grown with care, scratch-made cooking, and exceptional
hospitality”).
21 Id. at 141-43 (printout of article from Northern Virginia Magazine website).
Applicant faults the Examining Attorney for mischaracterizing the record as containing “food
and beverage industry articles and advertisements highlighting restaurants sourcing food
from farms.” 9 TTABVUE 3 n.1 (quoting 8 TTABVUE 6). Applicant states that “the evidence
cited by the Examining Attorney does not show any similar usage of the term ‘farm’ or ‘farms’
in connection with bar services and has nothing whatsoever to do with ‘beverages’.” 9
TTABVUE 3 n.1. This is contradicted by the evidence discussed in the text. We also note that
two of the third-party marks cited by Applicant with FARMS in their names cover bar
services in addition to restaurant services. See infra (identifications for JUNE FARMS and
REDFARM marks); see also March 17, 2025 Request for Reconsideration, TSDR at 38, 65)
(TSDR printouts).

Serial No. 98083981
- 12 -
determined that, given its general connotation for Registrant’s services, the
additional word FARMS did not overcome the similarity created by the nearly
identical, dominant word WISHBONES when used with Applicant’s services.
We also consider Applicant’s argument that the word FARMS and/or the nature
of the services cause WISHBONE(S) to have different connotations in the respective
marks. As for Applicant’s mark, we agree that it is common for bars to be named after
a person, but here there is no evidence that consumers would perceive WISHBONES
as the name of the bar’s founder or any other person. “WISHBONE” is not a common
personal nickname and Applicant’s mark does not contain an apostrophe indicating
that it is possessive. Cf. In re Beds & Bars Ltd., No. 85597669, 2017 TTAB LEXIS
141, at *14 (“Insofar as contextual clues are concerned, the mark BELUSHI’S
includes the surname BELUSHI in the possessive form (i.e., with an apostrophe ‘s’).
This is consistent with perception of the term as a surname.”).
As for the proffered “good luck” connotation of Applicant’s mark, the MERRIAM-
WEBSTER DICTIONARY definition states that the etymology of “wishbone” is “from the
superstition that when two persons pull it apart the one getting the longer fragment
will have a wish granted.”22 Although the “good luck” association may be stronger in
a casino, we believe consumers are most likely to associate the word WISHBONE(S)
with this tradition both when encountered in WISHBONES for bar services provided
in a casino, where one may wish to win money, and in WISHBONE FARMS for
restaurant and catering services, which contemplate people gathered for a meal
22 June 10, 2024 Petition to Revive, TSDR at 14.

Serial No. 98083981
- 13 -
(potentially at a casino) where the wishbone pulling tradition is often practiced. We
do not believe consumers familiar with the general connotation of FARMS relating to
farm-to-table food are likely to perceive WISHBONE in the Cited Mark as referring
to an anatomical feature of poultry rather than the common tradition. See, e.g., In re
Solid State Design Inc., No. 87269041, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 1, at *11 (“These claimed
subtle differences in meaning are not supported by any record evidence that the
average consumer of application software, ‘who normally retains a general rather
than a specific impression of trademarks,’ will interpret the dominant word ‘populace’
to connote something different in each mark.”) (quoting In re Bay State Brewing Co.,
No. 85826258, 2016 TTAB LEXIS 46, at *6).
The caselaw cited by Applicant does not persuade us otherwise. In Juice
Generation, Inc. v. GS Enters. LLC, 794 F.3d 1334, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the Federal
Circuit faulted the Board for simply declaring that the additional, disclaimed word
JUICE did not distinguish Applicant’s mark PEACE LOVE AND JUICE (and design)
from opposer’s standard character mark PEACE & LOVE without explaining how
that word may cause the marks to have different connotations. Id. at 1341. In the
Louis Roederer case, there was no likelihood of confusion between CRISTAL and
CRYSTAL CREEK for wines and champagnes because the marks “evoked very
different images in the minds of relevant consumers: while the former suggested the
clarity of the wine within the bottle or the glass of which the bottle itself was made,
the latter suggested ‘a very clear (and hence probably remote from civilization) creek
or stream.’” Champagne Louis Roederer, S.A. v. Delicato Vineyards, 148 F.3d 1373,

Serial No. 98083981
- 14 -
1375 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Here, there is evidence of a more general connotation of
“FARMS” in relation to Registrant’s services.23 Although on the leaner side, the
analysis shows that the Examining Attorney considered how the word FARMS could
affect consumer perception of WISHBONE(S) in the respective marks but concluded
that it does not change their commercial impressions. Applicant’s disagreement with
this conclusion does not require a different result. See, e.g., Louis Roederer, 148 F.3d
at 1375 (“Although Roederer disagrees, chiefly, with the Board’s interpretation of the
commercial impression of the marks, even reasoned disagreement with such a finding
does not, without more, establish that it is clearly erroneous.”).
Finally, Applicant urges that the USPTO’s registration of marks that are nearly
identical except for the word “FARM” or “FARMS” for restaurant services warrants
a similar outcome here. In support, Applicant refers to ten pairs of registrations made
of record with its Request for Reconsideration:24
Mark Pertinent Goods and Services Reg. No.
restaurant services; take-out restaurant
services
7433435
BODHI FARMS
(FARMS disclaimed)
catering services; hotel accommodation
services; resort lodging services; restaurant
services
5957226
23 Although consumers are not aware of disclaimers, the Cited Registration’s disclaimer of
FARMS indicates that WISHBONE FARMS is not considered a unitary phrase referring to
a specific place. See In re Six Continents, 2022 TTAB LEXIS at *23 (“The disclaimer is also a
concession that ATWELL SUITES is not a unitary mark.”); see also Dena Corp. v. Belvedere
Int’l, 950 F.2d 1555, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (in a unitary mark, the elements are inseparable
and “must combine to show that the mark has a distinct meaning of its own independent of
the meaning of its constituent elements. In other words, a unitary mark must create a single
and distinct commercial impression.”).
24 6 TTABVUE 10-11; March 17, 2025 Request for Reconsideration, TSDR at 12-89.

Serial No. 98083981
- 15 -
bar and restaurant services 4124007
GRACIE’S FARM
(FARM disclaimed)
restaurant services 7701417
restaurant services 3389324
IRVING FARM
(FARM disclaimed)
café services; coffee shops; restaurant 5750344
(JUICE disclaimed)
restaurant services 6182689
JUICEFARM restaurant and cafe services; snack bar
services; juice bar services
4486345
JUNE restaurant and café services 7013153
JUNE FARMS
(FARMS disclaimed)
bar services; hospitality services in the
nature of provision of food and drink;
hospitality services in the nature of
provision of temporary accommodation;
restaurant services; rental of rooms for
social functions; rental of banquet and
social function facilities for special
occasions, namely, weddings; rental of
banquet and social function facilities for
special occasions, namely, private parties;
rental of vacation cabins; resort lodging
services; snack bar services
7385832
KARMA restaurant and café services; restaurant
and catering services; restaurant services
featuring sandwiches; doughnut and
kolache shops in the nature of a restaurant;
fast-food restaurant services; ice cream
shop services in the nature of a restaurant;
take-out restaurant services
5431756
KARMAFARM catering services; restaurant services 5874925
LOGAN’S restaurant services 3326246
LOGAN FARMS
(FARMS disclaimed)
Delicatessen, restaurant and catering
services
2898622

Serial No. 98083981
- 16 -
RED’S restaurant services 5144075
REDFARM restaurant services; catering services;
take-out restaurant services; home
delivery restaurant services; bar services
and cocktail bar services
4129129
ROSEWOOD hotel, resort hotel, resort condominium
lodging and restaurant services
3434201
ROSEWOOD
FARMS
(claim of acquired
distinctiveness in
whole)
coffee bars; coffee shops; tea shops 7362769
restaurant and catering services; all of the
foregoing not relating to baseball or softball
or a baseball or softball team, baseball or
softball league, baseball or softball mascot
or baseball or softball stadium
5881893
ROYAL FARMS restaurant services, including sit-down and
take-out restaurant services, fast food
restaurants and snackbars through
convenience stores
4533266
We have carefully reviewed this evidence, but it does not persuade us that the
additional word FARMS gives rise to a different connotation in the marks involved
here, WISHBONES and WISHBONE FARMS. Unlike the standard character marks
involved here, several of these other marks contain a design and/or stylization
(BODHI, GRACIE’S, IRVING, JUICE and ROYALS), presenting a point of
differentiation between the marks in each pair that is absent in the involved marks.
Unlike WISHBONES, several of the marks have an apostrophe and are clearly
possessive in form giving them the connotation of a given name or nickname and
associating each mark with a particular person. Several of the shared terms,
including the surnames IRVING and LOGAN, the generic or descriptive word JUICE,
and the laudatory term ROYAL, appear to be conceptually weaker for restaurant or

Serial No. 98083981
- 17 -
hospitality services than the shared term here, WISHBONE(S). Concededly, other
pairs of marks registered to different parties (e.g., JUNE/JUNE FARMS and
ROSEWOOD/ROSEWOOD FARMS) appear on their face to contradict the refusal.
We acknowledge the importance of consistency in examination actions, but we are
not bound by the prior registrability determinations of examining attorneys made at
different times on different records.25 Instead, we must assess the registrability of
Applicant’s mark based on the record before us. See In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d
1339, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Even if some prior registrations had some
characteristics similar to [Applicant’s] application, the PTO’s allowance of such prior
registrations does not bind the Board or this court.”); In re Am. Furniture Warehouse
CO, No. 86407531, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 122, at *19 (“While we recognize that
consistency is highly desirable, consistency in examination is not itself a substantive
rule of trademark law, and a desire for consistency with the decisions of prior
examining attorneys must yield to proper determinations under the Trademark Act
and rules.”) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
On this record, considering the marks in their entireties, we find that the marks
WISHBONES and WISHBONE FARMS are similar. The first DuPont factor weighs
in favor of likelihood of confusion.
25 The TSDR evidence submitted by Applicant shows that the owner of the registration for
ROSEWOOD extended the time to oppose registration of ROSEWOOD FARMS. See March
17, 2025 Request for Reconsideration, TSDR at 73-74. We have no way of knowing whether
the parties entered an agreement refraining from opposing each other’s applications.

Serial No. 98083981
- 18 -
Conclusion – Balancing the DuPont Factors
The final step in analyzing likelihood of confusion is to weigh the DuPont factors
for which there is evidence and argument, “explain the results of that weighing,” and
address “the weight [we] assigned to the relevant factors.” In re Charger Ventures, 64
F.4th at 1384. Applicant’s “bar services provided in a casino” are closely related to
Registrant’s “restaurant, catering and restaurant carryout services” and because the
Cited Registration does not contain any limitations, the respective services can both
be provided in a casino setting, to the same consumers. Thus, the second and third
DuPont factors weigh in favor of a likelihood of confusion. Although there are
differences, the marks WISHBONES and WISHBONE FARMS feature the nearly
identical dominant word WISHBONE(S) which is inherently source-identifying for
Registrant’s services and renders the marks similar. We do not find that the
connotations of the marks are so different that consumers are likely to perceive the
overall commercial impressions in a markedly different way. The first DuPont factor
also weighs in favor of likelihood of confusion. No DuPont factor weighs against
likelihood of confusion in this case.
Balancing the factors, we conclude that confusion is likely between Applicant’s
mark and the Cited Mark for their respective identified services.
Decision:
The refusal to register Applicant’s mark under Trademark Act Section 2(d) is
affirmed.