Genuine Risk

Mailed: March 23, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
————
In re Genuine Risk
————
Serial No. 90170906
————
Jack A. Wheat of McBrayer PLLC,
for Genuine Risk.
Benjamin Rosen, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 120,
Joshua Toy, Managing Attorney.
————
Before Heasley, Pologeorgis, and Bradley,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Pologeorgis, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Genuine Risk (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register of the
standard character mark GOOD TIMES for “bourbon” in International Class 33.1
1 Application Serial No. 90170906, filed on September 10, 2020, based on an allegation of use
in commerce under Section 1(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), claiming August
22, 2020 as both the date of first use and the date of first use in commerce. Applicant
originally filed its application seeking registration of the mark GOOD TIMES BOURBON,
but amended the drawing of the mark during prosecution to delete the term BOURBON from
the mark, see October 24, 2024 Response to Suspension Inquiry, which was accepted by the
Office. Additionally, in its July 2, 2024 Response to Office Action, Applicant amended its
application to claim ownership of its prior Registration No. 7301065, issued on the Principal
Register, for the standard character mark CASA GOOD TIMES for “Alcoholic beverages,
except beers; Alcoholic beverages, namely, Distilled spirits.”
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB

Serial No. 90170906
2
The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration of Applicant’s mark
under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), on the ground of
likelihood of confusion with the following five registered marks2 (all owned by
different registrants):
• Reg. No. 4491880 – GOODE TIMES GUARANTEED (standard characters)
for “alcoholic beverages except beers” in International Class 33;3
• Reg. No. 4760521 – LET THE GOOD TIMES ROLL (standard characters)
for “distilled spirits” in International Class 33;4
• Reg. No. 5499622 – WE GROW GOOD TIMES (standard characters) for
“alcoholic beverages except beers; distilled spirits” in International Class 33;5
• Reg. No. 6181713 – for, among other things, “distilled spirits;
vodka” in International Class 33;6 and
• Reg. No. 6202224 – GUARD THE GOOD TIMES (standard characters) for
“whiskey” in International Class 33.7
2 The Examining Attorney also cited a sixth registration, Registration No. 5785980 for the
standard character mark GOOD TIMES FROM A GOOD PLACE for “alcoholic beverages,
except beers” in International Class 33. The registration file of this registered mark indicates
that the registrant submitted a Section 8 affidavit on November 17, 2025 that deletes from
the registration, among other goods and services, the entirety of the identified Class 33 goods.
While the Office has yet to act upon the registrant’s Section 8 affidavit, it is clearly this
particular registrant’s intention to delete these goods from its registration. Thus, this
particular registration will be given no consideration in our analysis.
3 Registered March 4, 2014; renewed; owned by Jackson Family Farms, LLC.
4 Registered June 23, 2015; renewed; owned by Rollins Distillery, Inc.
5 Registered June 19, 2018; renewed; owned by Dry Hills Distillery, LLC.
6 Registered October 20, 2020; owned by BioKare, Inc. This registration also identifies goods
in International Class 25, which are not relevant to the issues in this proceeding.
7 Registered November 17, 2020; owned by Proud Cock Distilleries.
In the initial Office Action, the Examining Attorney also cited to the following registered
marks: (1) Reg. No. 4931903 for the mark TAP INTO GOOD TIMES! (stylized characters

Serial No. 90170906
3
When the refusal was made final, Applicant appealed. The appeal is fully briefed.
For the reasons explained below, we reverse the Section 2(d) refusal to register.8
I. Likelihood of Confusion
Our determination under Section 2(d) is based on an analysis of all probative facts
in evidence that are relevant to the factors bearing on the issue of likelihood of
confusion. In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361 (CCPA 1973)
(“DuPont”); see also In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1314-15 (Fed. Cir.
2003). We have considered each DuPont factor that is relevant and for which there is
evidence and argument of record. See In re Guild Mortg. Co., 912 F.3d 1376, 1378-79
(Fed. Cir. 2019). Varying weights may be assigned to each DuPont factor depending
on the evidence presented. See Citigroup Inc. v. Cap. City Bank Grp. Inc., 637 F.3d
1344, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(“[T]he various evidentiary factors may play more or less weighty roles in any
particular determination.”).
plus design) for “Alcoholic beverages, except beers” in Class 33; (2) Reg. No. 4869769 for the
mark SIPPIN’ ON GOOD TIMES (standard characters) for “Distilled Spirits; liquor; Spirits
and liqueurs” in Class 33; Distilled Spirits; (3) Reg. No. 4489317 for the mark SHARE GOOD
TIMES (standard characters) for “Alcoholic beverages, except beers” in Class 33; and (4) Reg.
No. 4856045) for the mark TAP INTO GOOD TIMES! (standard characters) for “Alcoholic
beverages, except beers” in Class 33. These four registrations, however, were cancelled
during the prosecution of Applicant’s application and therefore have no probative value in
our analysis. Made in Nature, LLC v. Pharmavite LLC, No. 91223352, 2022 WL 2188890, at
*15 (TTAB 2022) (disregarding cancelled third-party registrations because “[a] cancelled or
expired registration has no probative value other than to show that it once issued and it is
not entitled to any of the statutory presumptions of Trademark Act Section 7(b)”).
8 The TTABVUE and Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (“TSDR”) citations refer to
the docket and electronic file database for the involved application. All citations to the TSDR
database are to the downloadable .PDF version of the documents.

Serial No. 90170906
4
“Each case must be decided on its own facts and the differences are often subtle
ones.” Indus. Nucleonics Corp. v. Hinde, 475 F.2d 1197, 1199 (CCPA 1973) (internal
citations removed). “Two key factors in every Section 2(d) case are the first two factors
regarding the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks and the goods or services,
because the ‘fundamental inquiry mandated by § 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of
differences in the essential characteristics of the goods and differences in the marks.”’
In re Embiid, No. 88202890, 2021 WL 2285576, at *3 (TTAB 2021) (quoting Federated
Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 1103 (CCPA 1976)).
A. Similarity of the Goods
We first turn to the comparison of the goods, the second DuPont factor. In making
our determination regarding the similarity of the goods, we must look to the goods as
identified in Applicant’s application and in the cited registrations. See Stone Lion
Cap. Partners, LP v. Lion Cap. LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting
Octocom Sys., Inc. v. Hous. Comput. Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
(“The authority is legion that the question of registrability of an applicant’s mark
must be decided on the basis of the identification of goods set forth in the application
regardless of what the record may reveal as to the particular nature of an applicant’s
goods, the particular channels of trade or the class of purchasers to which the sales
of goods are directed.”).
To reiterate, Applicant’s goods are “bourbon.” The five cited registrations employ
broad wording to identify their respective goods, i.e., “alcoholic beverages, except

Serial No. 90170906
5
beer(s),” “distilled spirits,” and “whiskey.”9 The broad identifications in each of the
five cited registrations encompass Applicant’s more narrowly defined goods. See In re
Hughes Furniture Indus., Inc., No. 85627379, 2015 WL 1734918, at *3 (TTAB 2015)
(“Applicant’s broadly worded identification of ‘furniture’ necessarily encompasses
Registrant’s narrowly identified ‘residential and commercial furniture.’”). Thus, the
goods are legally identical.
Accordingly, the second DuPont factor strongly favors a finding of likelihood of
confusion.
B. Similarity of Trade Channels and Classes of Purchasers
We next consider the third DuPont factor involving the established, likely-to-
continue channels of trade of the goods. Because we have found that Applicant’s and
Registrants’ goods are legally identical and there are no restrictions as to trade
channels or classes of purchasers in any of the cited registrations or the involved
application, we must presume that these legally identical goods are provided in the
same trade channels and are offered to the same classes of purchasers. Monster
Energy Co. v. Lo, No. 91225050, 2023 WL 417620, at *8 (TTAB 2023) (citing In re
Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (finding Board entitled to rely on
this legal presumption in determining likelihood of confusion)); In re Yawata Iron &
9 The record includes the dictionary definitions of “bourbon and “spirit.” Bourbon is defined
as “a whiskey distilled from a mash made up of not less than 51 percent corn plus malt and
rye.” Merriam-Webster.com, November 7, 2024 Final Office Action, TSDR p. 21. “Spirit” is
defined as “a distilled alcoholic liquor.” Id., TSDR p. 15.

Serial No. 90170906
6
Steel Co., 403 F.2d 752, 771 (CCPA 1968) (where there are legally identical goods, the
channels of trade and classes of purchasers are considered to be the same).
Thus, the third DuPont factor also weighs heavily in favor of finding a likelihood
of confusion.
C. Strength of the Cited Marks
Before we compare the marks at issue, we consider, under the sixth DuPont
factor, Applicant’s argument that the wording “GOOD TIMES” is suggestive and
inherently weak as used in connection with the goods listed in the cited
registrations.10 We do so because a determination of the strength or weakness of the
cited marks helps inform us as to their scope of protection. See In re Morinaga Nyugyo
Kabushiki Kaisha, No. 86338392, 2016 WL 5219811, at *6 (TTAB 2016) (“[T]he
strength of the cited mark is--as always--relevant to assessing the likelihood of
confusion under the du Pont framework.”).
1. Conceptual Strength of the Cited Marks
Conceptual strength is a measure of a mark’s distinctiveness and may be placed
“in categories of generally increasing distinctiveness: . . . (1) generic; (2) descriptive;
(3) suggestive; (4) arbitrary; or (5) fanciful.” Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505
U.S. 763, 768 (1992).
Because each of the cited marks issued on the Principal Register without a claim
of acquired distinctiveness, the marks are presumed to be inherently distinctive for
the goods listed in the cited registrations. 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b); Tea Bd. of India v.
10 Applicant’s Appeal Brief, p. 8, 4 TTABVUE 9.

Serial No. 90170906
7
Republic of Tea, Inc., No. 91118587, 2006 WL 24060188, at *21 (TTAB 2006) (“A mark
that is registered on the Principal Register is entitled to all Section 7(b) presumptions
including the presumption that the mark is distinctive and moreover, in the absence
of a Section 2(f) claim in the registration, that the mark is inherently distinctive for
the goods.”).
However, the Federal Circuit has held that if there is evidence that a mark, or an
element of a mark, is commonly adopted by many different registrants, that may
indicate that the mark or a common element thereof has some conceptual weakness
as an indicator of a single source. See Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH
& Co. KGAA v. New Millennium Sports, S.L.U., 797 F.3d 1363, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(“[E]vidence of third-party registrations is relevant to ‘show the sense in which a
mark is used in ordinary parlance,’ . . . that is, some segment that is common to both
parties’ marks may have ‘a normally understood and well-recognized descriptive or
suggestive meaning, leading to the conclusion that segment is relatively weak.”’)
(quoting Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS Enters. LLC, 794 F.3d 1334, 1339 (Fed. Cir.
2015)).
Here, Applicant did not submit any third-party registrations. Instead, it relies
solely on the cited registrations, as well as its own registration for the mark CASA
GOOD TIMES, to support its argument: that the wording “GOOD TIMES” is
conceptually weak and diluted because it is suggestive of the merriment consumers
anticipate enjoying when imbibing alcoholic beverages. We agree with Applicant.
We find that the cited GOOD TIMES-formative marks themselves, each of which

Serial No. 90170906
8
is combined with other terms and each of which covers one or more pertinent alcoholic
beverages, show that marks containing the term GOOD TIMES for alcoholic
beverages can be distinguished by additional matter and/or the differing connotations
conveyed in light of the conceptual weakness of the “GOOD TIMES” element.11 See
e.g., In re Hartz Hotel Servs., Inc., No. 76692673, 2012 WL 1193704, at *4 (TTAB
2012) (“It is clear from the third-party registrations that the addition of a geographic
location to the word GRAND HOTEL has been sufficient for the [USPTO] to view
these marks as being sufficiently different from the cited registrant’s mark, and from
each other, such as not to cause confusion.”); Plus Prods. v. Nat. Organics, Inc., No.
91055487, 1979 WL 24902, at *7-8 (TTAB 1979) (numerous PLUS marks on the
trademark register for vitamins reflect the Office’s belief, the trademark owners’
belief, and plaintiff’s belief that PLUS marks can be registered side by side for
vitamins without confusion provided there are minimal differences between the
marks.). Accordingly, we find that the registrations of record demonstrate that the
wording GOOD TIMES, when used in association with alcoholic beverages, is
conceptually weak, thereby undermining this wording as an indicator of a single
source.
11 While we acknowledge that the four registrations of record that have been cancelled, as
well as cited Registration No. 5785980 for the standard character mark GOOD TIMES FROM
A GOOD PLACE where the relevant Class 33 goods will be deleted, have no probative value
in our analysis, they nonetheless do show that these registrations also did issue, at one point
in time, for marks including the wording GOOD TIMES used in connection with various
alcoholic beverages.

Serial No. 90170906
9
2. Commercial Strength or Weakness of the Cited Marks12
To assess commercial strength of the cited mark, we consider the number and
nature of similar marks in use on similar goods. DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361; see
Primrose Ret. Cmtys., LLC v. Edward Rose Senior Living, LLC, No. 91217095, 2016
WL 765551, at *4 (TTAB 2016). If the evidence establishes that the consuming public
is exposed to widespread third-party use of similar marks for similar goods, it “is
relevant to show that a mark is relatively weak and entitled to only a narrow scope
of protection.” See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee
En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Here, Applicant has not submitted any evidence of third-party marketplace uses
of marks identical or similar to the cited marks. And the third-party registrations
discussed above do not establish that the relevant consuming public has been exposed
to widespread use of similar marks in connection with alcoholic beverages. See, e.g.,
AMF Inc. v. Am. Leisure Prods., Inc., 474 F.2d 1403, 1406 (CCPA 1973) (holding that
“[t]he existence of these [third-party] registrations is not evidence of what happens
in the market place or that customers are familiar with them”). Accordingly, the
record does not establish that the wording GOOD TIMES included in the cited marks
is commercially weak when used in connection with the goods listed in the cited
registrations.
12 As is normally the case in ex parte proceedings, the fifth DuPont factor is neutral because
the owners of the cited registrations are not parties to this proceeding, and the Examining
Attorney is under no obligation to demonstrate exposure to or recognition of the cited marks
in the marketplace. In re Integrated Embedded, No. 86140341, 2016 WL 7368696, at *9
(TTAB 2016); In re Thomas, No. 78334625, 2006 WL 1258862, at *6 n.11 (TTAB 2006).

Serial No. 90170906
10
3. Conclusion as to the Strength of the Cited Marks
In short, while the evidence of record does not establish that the wording GOOD
TIMES in the cited marks is commercially weak, the record does show that use of the
wording GOOD TIMES in marks used in connection with alcoholic beverages has a
commonly understood suggestive meaning and, therefore, this component of the cited
marks is conceptually weak. In light of this conceptual weakness, we deem the GOOD
TIMES component of each of the cited marks to have a limited scope of protection.
Accordingly, we find that the sixth DuPont factor favors a finding that confusion
is not likely.
D. Similarity of the Marks
We finally consider the first DuPont factor, focusing on the similarity or
dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation
and commercial impression. See Palm Bay, 396 F.3d at 1371 (quoting DuPont, 476
F.2d at 1361).
Applicant’s mark is GOOD TIMES in standard characters. The cited marks are
as follows:
• GOODE TIMES GUARANTEED in standard characters;
• LET THE GOOD TIMES ROLL in standard characters;
• WE GROW GOOD TIMES in standard characters;
• ; and
• GUARD THE GOOD TIMES in standard characters.

Serial No. 90170906
11
Applicant argues that the cited marks are conceptually weak, considering the
multitude of GOOD TIMES-formative marks in the alcohol beverage space, and, that
they should therefore be accorded a limited scope of protection.13 As such, Applicant
concludes that consumers can and will be able to distinguish between Applicant’s
mark and the cited registrations and, therefore, the Section 2(d) refusal should be
reversed.14
The Examining Attorney contends that although Applicant’s mark does not
contain the entirety of the cited registered marks, Applicant’s mark nonetheless is
likely to appear to prospective purchasers as a shortened form of each respective cited
mark.15 Additionally, the Examining Attorney argues that because the goods at issue
are legally identical in part, the degree of similarity between the marks required to
support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as in the case of diverse
goods.16 In applying this principle, the Examining Attorney maintains that the marks
at issue are highly similar on their face and any small differences between the marks
should not detract from the overall similarity of the marks at issue.17 The Examining
Attorney further contends that the marks at issue have similar meanings and overall
13 Applicant’s Appeal Brief, p. 8, 4 TTABVUE 9.
14 Id.
15 Examining Attorney’s Brief, p. 5, 6 TTABVUE 5.
16 Id. at 6-7, 6 TTABVUE 6-7.
17 Id. at 7, 6 TTABVUE 7.

Serial No. 90170906
12
commercial impressions because of the shared wording GOOD TIMES, making
confusion likely.18
We initially note that the only common element in the marks is the term
GOOD(E) TIME(S) and, as discussed above, this term is weak as a source identifier
in the field of alcoholic beverages. While we are mindful that weak marks still deserve
protection from registration of a similar mark for similar goods/services, see China
Healthways Institute, Inc. v. Wang, 491 F.3d 1337, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2007), the cited
marks are not just GOOD TIMES but rather distinctive phrases that include the
wording GOOD TIMES. We must evaluate whether the cited marks in their entirety
are sufficiently similar to Applicant’s mark GOOD TIMES that consumers would
mistakenly believe the goods emanate from a common source. In other words, we will
not find confusion solely because the parties’ marks share the weak term GOOD
TIMES. See, e.g., In re Bed & Breakfast Registry, 791 F.2d 157, 159 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
(“The record shows that a large number of marks embodying the words ‘bed and
breakfast’ are used for similar reservation services, a factor that weighs in favor of
the conclusion that BED & BREAKFAST REGISTRY and BED & BREAKFAST
INTERNATIONAL are not rendered confusingly similar merely because they share
the words ‘bed and breakfast.”’); In re FabFitFun, Inc., No. 86847381, 2018 WL
4043156, at *7 (TTAB 2018) (holding I’M SMOKING HOT for cosmetics and related
non-medical personal care items and SMOKIN’ HOT SHOW TIME for cosmetics not
likely to cause confusion based on a totality of the evidence showing that the shared
18 Id. at 6, 6 TTABVUE 6.

Serial No. 90170906
13
wording is somewhat weak in view of its suggestiveness and that the marks overall
convey different commercial impressions); see also TRADEMARK MANUAL OF
EXAMINING PROCEDURE (TMEP) § 1207.01(b)(viii) (Nov. 2025) and authorities cited
therein (“If the common element of two marks is ‘weak’ in that it is generic,
descriptive, or highly suggestive of the named goods or services, it is unlikely that
consumers will be confused unless the overall combinations have other
commonality.”).
Turning to the marks at issue, we find that the cited marks and Applicant’s mark
are somewhat similar visually and aurally in light of the shared wording GOOD
TIMES. However, the similarity of the marks ends there. When viewing the cited
marks in their entirety, and keeping in mind that the wording GOOD TIMES is
conceptually weak for the goods involved, we find, contrary to the Examining
Attorney’s arguments, that the cited marks have differing connotations and overall
commercial impressions when compared to Applicant’s mark. Indeed, the structure
and distinctive sentiments expressed in each of the cited marks are absent from
Applicant’s mark. For example, the cited mark GUARD THE GOOD TIMES connotes
protecting the good times one is experiencing. Further, the cited mark LET THE
GOOD TIMES ROLL suggests that one should keep on having a good time. These
connotations and commercial impressions are not present in Applicant’s mark.
Moreover, given that the cited marks use “GOOD TIMES” as part of an overall
distinctive phrase, we find it unlikely that consumers will view Applicant’s mark as
a shortened form of any of the cited marks.

Serial No. 90170906
14
Quite simply, we find that Applicant’s mark and the cited marks are sufficiently
dissimilar in structure, meaning and overall commercial impression,
notwithstanding any similarities in sound and appearance due to the shared wording
GOOD TIMES. Thus, the first DuPont factor favors a finding that confusion is not
likely.
II. Balancing the Factors
Any of the DuPont factors may play a dominant role. DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361-
62. In fact, in some cases, a single factor may be dispositive. Kellogg Co. v. Pack’em
Enters. Inc., 951 F.2d 330, 333 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“We know of no reason why, in a
particular case, a single duPont factor may not be dispositive.”). In the present
appeal, we find that (1) under the sixth DuPont factor, the record evidence shows that
the term GOOD TIMES is conceptually weak when used in connection with alcoholic
beverages, and (2) when considering the marks as a whole under the first DuPont
factor, the marks are sufficiently dissimilar not only in structure but in meaning and
overall commercial impression, notwithstanding some visual and aural similarity due
to the shared term GOOD(E) TIME(S). For these reasons, we find the first and sixth
DuPont factors to be pivotal and together prevail over the legal identity of the goods
under the second DuPont factor, as well as the presumed identical trade channels
and classes of purchasers under the third DuPont factor. Under these circumstances,
we find that confusion is unlikely.

Serial No. 90170906
15
Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s GOOD TIMES mark under Section
2(d) of the Trademark Act is reversed.19
19 After Applicant amended the drawing of its mark from GOOD TIMES BOURBON to GOOD
TIMES, the disclaimer of the word “BOURBON” that was previously entered remained as
part of the application and still does. Since Applicant’s mark no longer includes the term
BOURBON, the disclaimer should be deleted upon the return of the application to the
assigned Examining Attorney for further processing of Applicant’s application.