Nestle accuses Tulsa businesswoman of trademark violation
Andrei Mincov's commentary on the original article
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.