March 12, 2026
Hello Reader,
Most founders assume trademark conflicts only happen within the same industry.
A coffee brand competes with other coffee brands.
A whiskey brand competes with other whiskey brands.
Different industries should be safe.
And for many years, that assumption was often correct.
In fact, the USPTO historically allowed many trademarks for coffee and alcoholic beverages to coexist — even when the names were identical.
The reasoning was simple.
Coffee is coffee.
Alcohol is alcohol.
Different industries meant different consumers.
But over the past several years, we have seen a noticeable shift in how these cases are evaluated.
A recent decision from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board illustrates that change.
In the case, an applicant applied to register a mark for coffee and coffee-based beverages.
The USPTO refused the application based on an existing registration for alcoholic beverages using a very similar name.
At first glance, the goods seem unrelated.
Coffee isn’t whiskey.
But trademark law focuses less on product categories and more on whether consumers might believe the products come from the same company.
To analyze this, the Board applies the DuPont factors, which evaluate things like similarity of the marks, relatedness of the goods, and overlap in trade channels.
In this case, the Board agreed that coffee and alcoholic beverages are not inherently related goods.
But the analysis didn’t stop there.
The examining attorney introduced marketplace evidence showing that many companies sell both coffee and alcoholic beverages under the same brand.
Specifically:
• 19 third-party trademark registrations covered both coffee and alcoholic beverages
• 9 examples showed businesses offering both products under the same mark
That evidence was enough for the Board to conclude that consumers could believe the products came from the same source.
The applicant tried to argue that its coffee was:
• not infused with alcohol
• not used in alcoholic beverages
• not sold in connection with alcoholic beverages
But the Board rejected that argument.
Why?
Because a company cannot control how consumers or retailers use its product.
For example, a consumer could easily mix coffee with whiskey to make an Irish coffee.
And retailers often sell both products in the same stores.
The Board noted that supermarkets, liquor stores, and online retailers commonly sell both coffee and alcohol, meaning the goods can appear in the same channels of trade to the same consumers.
That overlap supported the refusal.
What makes this decision particularly interesting is that years ago the USPTO often allowed these types of marks to coexist.
We were frequently able to register identical or very similar names for coffee and alcohol because the goods were considered different industries.
But recently we’ve seen a growing number of decisions treating beverages — both alcoholic and non-alcoholic — as related goods.
That shift means trademarks that once might have been approved are now facing refusals.
For founders, this highlights an important reality about trademark strategy.
Trademark law is not static.
The USPTO and the courts continually refine how these rules are applied.
And the biggest risks often come from industries founders never expected.
Over the past 15 years and more than 7,500 trademark filings, I’ve seen conflicts arise between:
• coffee and alcohol
• restaurants and clothing brands
• supplements and beverages
• software and education services
The reason is simple.
Trademark law focuses on consumer perception, not just product category.
If consumers could reasonably believe two products come from the same company, the marks may conflict — even when the products are different.
This is one of the reasons a proper trademark search matters.
A quick search for identical names is rarely enough.
The real risks often come from adjacent industries that founders never considered.
Founder takeaway
Trademark conflicts don’t always come from your competitors.
Sometimes they come from industries you never expected.
And the rules about what counts as “related” goods continue to evolve.
Recent trademark registrations this week
Congratulations to these founders whose trademarks were successfully registered by our firm this week:
All the best,
J.J. Lee and the Trademark Lawyer Law Firm Team
P.S. If you are considering filing a trademark and want to understand the safest strategy, you can review the filing options here:
Trademark Registration Options Here
If you know another founder who is building a brand, feel free to forward this email to them.