Decisions · 86040643 and 86040656
In re Mr. Recipe, LLC
Serial Nos. 86040643 and 86040656 · Decided 2016-03-18 · Section 2(d) Ex Parte Appeal
What happened
Refusals affirmed for both applications — the Board blocked Mr. Recipe’s JAWS mark for an internet channel streaming cooking programs because it is identical to the famous registered JAWS mark for motion-picture video recordings, and movie fans would assume a connection. The companion mark JAWS DEVOUR YOUR HUNGER was refused for the same reason: it contains the famous JAWS mark in full, and the added slogan brings the hungry shark to mind instead of setting the marks apart.
The marks
Applicant
JAWS
Entertainment, namely, streaming of audiovisual material via an Internet channel providing programming related to cooking
Cited registration
JAWS
video recordings in all formats all featuring motion pictures
How the marks compared
| Dimension | Finding | What the Board said |
|---|---|---|
| sound | Similar | JAWS is the identical word in both applied-for marks and the registered mark, and it is the first word customers hear and remember in the slogan. |
| appearance | Similar | JAWS looks identical to the registered mark, and because the slogan mark is in standard characters it could be displayed with JAWS emphasized over the smaller tagline. |
| meaning | Similar | DEVOUR YOUR HUNGER evokes the voracious shark of the JAWS movies rather than creating a separate food-only meaning. |
| commercial impression | Similar | The Board found the slogan just as likely to call the famous shark to mind as an appetite to be satisfied, so the overall impression matches the registered mark. |
One applied-for mark is identical to the registered JAWS mark, and the other is similar in appearance, sound, meaning and commercial impression because the famous word JAWS dominates it.
du Pont factors that bore on the outcome
| # | Factor | Weight | What the Board found |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Similarity of the marks | Favored Refusal | Applicant’s JAWS is identical to the cited JAWS. |
| 2 | Relatedness of the goods or services | Favored Refusal | Streaming a cooking-focused internet channel is related to motion-picture video recordings. |
| 5 | Fame of the prior mark | Favored Refusal | The examining attorney proved JAWS famous for motion-picture video recordings, and fame weighed heavily. |
| 6 | Number and nature of similar marks in use | Favored Refusal | No significant third-party use narrowed the famous mark’s broad scope of protection. |
Why this decision is significant
Precedential decision establishing how the fame of a cited registered mark can be proved by an examining attorney and weighed in ex parte appeals, where the factor is normally treated as neutral; it also confirms that internet streaming services and physical video recordings are related as different conduits for the same content.
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 upheld
In re Mr. Recipe, LLC
JAWS DEVOUR YOUR HUNGER for a cooking-video streaming channel was blocked by the famous JAWS movie mark, which dominates the slogan as its first word while DEVOUR YOUR HUNGER only…
86040656 · 2016-03-18 · JAWS DEVOUR YOUR HUNGER v. JAWS
Refusal affirmed
In re Lasertec Corporation
Because Lasertec’s GALOIS mark for semiconductor wafer inspection machines is identical to the registered GALOIS mark for cameras and scanners, and the evidence showed those products work…
79358845 · 2026-03-16 · GALOIS v. GALOIS
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
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.