Trademark News & Screw-ups Ferrero Won't Engage In Nestlé's Trademark Claim Against Tulsa Snacks Maker

So the businesswoman just filed her answer to the opposition. Among the usual nonsensical "Oh, a big bully is trying to bully a small snowflake" arguments, there are three arguments that are actually interesting. First, there are many trademarks in the same space that include the word CRUNCH, all owned by different entities. The argument here is that if USPTO thinks that 10 CRUNCH-based marks can coexist, then so can 11. Second, Nestle owns several CRUNCH trademarks, all for chocolate, chocolate bars, ice cream, frozen confections. Carla's trademark application is for bakery goods and dessert items, namely cakes, cookies, pastries, candies, and frozen confections. He snacks are sold in transparent plastic bags, unlike Nestle's chocolates. The goods are not identical, albeit substantially similar. Finally, the strongest argument is that the parties allegedly reached a settlement that defined the terms of a trademark coexistence, which Nestle ignored by filing the opposition. This case is very likely to settle because the last thing Nestle needs is to have its CRUNCH trademarks canceled for being (or becoming) generic, given the number of other CRUNCHes out there.

The video below features Andrei Mincov's commentary of this article.



Pick from the topics below or use our search system.

And make sure you subscribe to our YouTube channel for more free educational content.

Disclaimer: Please note that this post and this video are not and are not intended as legal advice. Your situation may be different from the facts assumed in this post or video. Your reading this post or watching this video does not create a lawyer-client relationship between you and Trademark Factory International Inc., and you should not rely on this post or this video as the only source of information to make important decisions about your intellectual property.