Decisions · 85684754
In re House Beer, LLC
Serial No. 85684754 · Decided 2015-03-27 · Section 2(d) Ex Parte Appeal
What happened
Refusal upheld — HOUSE BEER for a beer store is identical to the registered HOUSE BEER for beer itself, and a claimed USPTO processing error could not override the statutory bar against registering confusingly similar marks.
The marks
Applicant
HOUSE BEER (standard characters, BEER disclaimed)
Retail store services featuring beer (Class 35)
Cited registration
HOUSE BEER (standard characters, Supplemental Register, BEER disclaimed)
Beer (Class 32)
How the marks compared
| Dimension | Finding | What the Board said |
|---|---|---|
| sound | Similar | The marks are identical. |
| appearance | Similar | The marks are identical standard-character marks. |
| meaning | Similar | The marks are identical. |
| commercial impression | Similar | The marks are identical. |
The marks are identical.
du Pont factors that bore on the outcome
| # | Factor | Weight | What the Board found |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Similarity of the marks | Favored Refusal | Both marks are HOUSE BEER in standard characters. |
| 2 | Relatedness of the goods or services | Favored Refusal | Beer and retail store services featuring beer are commonplace related goods and services familiar to consumers. |
Why this decision is significant
Precedential dual holding: alleged USPTO errors in conflicting-application processing procedures cannot override the Section 2(d) statutory bar, and a Supplemental Register registration is properly cited under 2(d) — identical HOUSE BEER marks for beer and beer retail confirmed confusingly similar.
Research significance is Trademark Valet's editorial rating of how useful a decision is to practitioners. It is not a statement of precedential weight — that is the separate Precedential field, which comes from the Board.
Related decisions
Refusal affirmed
In re Robert Sulic
The Board found Robert Sulic’s BLACK SWAN vodka mark identical to the registered BLACK SWAN mark for wines, and because vodka and wine are related drinks sold through overlapping channels…
79375327 · 2026-01-07 · BLACK SWAN v. BLACK SWAN
Refusal affirmed
In re Robert Sulic
The Board found Robert Sulic’s BLACK SWAN VODKA label (castle, mountains, and swan design) confusingly similar to the registered BLACK SWAN mark for wines; the swan picture just reinforces…
79375609 · 2026-01-07 · BLACK SWAN VODKA & design v. BLACK SWAN
In re Country Oven, Inc.
The Board affirmed refusal of the identical mark COUNTRY OVEN for retail and custom bakery services because a different company already owns a decades-old registration for COUNTRY OVEN…
87354443 · 2019-11-18 · COUNTRY OVEN v. COUNTRY OVEN
In re Inn at St. John's, LLC
The Board found 5IVE STEAKHOUSE (with a fork-and-knife design) for restaurant and bar services too similar to the registered mark 5IVESTEAK for identical services, and blocked the newer…
87075988 · 2018-06-06 · 5IVE STEAKHOUSE and design (the wording "5ive" in stylized letters, set above the design of an intersecting fork and knife, all set above the word "Steakhouse"; "Steakhouse" disclaimed) v. 5IVESTEAK and design (wording 5IVESTEAK presented in the colors red and brown, with red in the number "5" and letters "IVE" and brown in the letters "STEAK"; colors red and brown claimed as a feature of the mark)
The original record
Read the opinion and every filing on the Board's own docket. The summary above is our paraphrase, not a quotation from the opinion. The opinion is the authority.
Who checked this
Not yet reviewed by an attorney. This summary is generated from coded data, and it says so until a lawyer has read it.
Provenance — Generated from database rows without re-reading the opinion.
General information about how trademark law works. It is not legal advice about your situation, and reading it does not make anyone your lawyer.