In Re Coors Brewing Company

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that beer and restaurant services are not sufficiently related to support a finding of a likelihood of confusion
• stating that a mark for a brewpub “would clearly be related” to a mark for beer
• holding that it is not true that “any time a brand of [food or beverage] has a trade- mark that is similar to the registered trademark of some restaurant, consumers are likely to assume that the [food or beverage] is associated with that restaurant”
• finding that “Blue Moon” for use with restaurant services was not related to “Blue Moon” beer, even though some restaurants brew or sell their own beer, because the mark was not used in connection with a brewpub
• requiring a showing of “something more” to find likelihood of confusion between beer and restaurant services
• “[D]egree of overlap between the sources of restaurant services and the sources of beer is de minimis”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).