Latin Hooters

Last week I wrote about Florida’s love of boats.  This week, it’s hooters Hooters.  RAISINSI’m sure it’s the same all over the U.S.A., but Hooters (the restaurants) are all over Florida.  Just last week I went to Daytona for a car show, and Hooters was there selling wings, soda, and fun.  Before I had even handed over my two dollars for a warm can of Diet Coke, an “I Love Hooters” sticker had been slapped on my chest.  It reminded me of my favorite South Park episode in which Butters falls in love with his “RAISINS” waitress because she showers him with affection at the restaurant – at least until he ran out of tip money…

Florida is also the place where WingHouse spanked Hooters in a trade dress infringement case, so a Hooters post is definitely at home on Florida IP Trends.

As an IP attorney, I have a disease that has altered my brain into constantly scanning for trademarks – infringing or otherwise.  While most people scan signs and billboards for information (such as STOP, YIELD, etc.), I’m looking for the registered trademark symbol.  It’s ridiculous.  If I see a somewhat-descriptive mark with the “circle R” symbol, I’ll turn to my wife and say “Must be on the Supplemental” to which she replies, “You’re a dork.”  Point taken, but 9 times out of ten when I get back home and search the USPTO TESS database, I’m right.Latin Hooters

Latin HootersSo, imagine my udder utter delight when I saw this sign: LATIN HOOTERS.  Oh yes – there is a LATIN HOOTERS restaurant on Lake Underhill Drive in Orlando.  When I first saw it I got giddy with the possibility of a Hooters v. Latin Hooters fight.  I have seen at least one (old) cease and desist letter sent by Hooters asking for the removal of a picture of a customer with some Hooters waitresses from a website.  Surely LATIN HOOTERS is on the radar.

Well, this was all several months ago – in fact – it may have been a year since I took these pictures with my cell phone.  I didn’t think much of it until today when I saw the sign again.  So, I fired up the TESS database, and sure enough, LATIN HOOTERS filed a trademark application.  Ouch.  This is a surefire way to bring the wrath of the owner of a famous brand.  It’s like mailing a letter to corporate counsel asking for them to check out your potentially infringing business.  Most people don’t realize that companies with a valuable IP portfolio are actively monitoring trademark applications for potentially infringing marks.  They have to – there can be legal penalties for failing to police or monitor your registered mark.  Example:  Ever thought about filing an application for a mark that contains the word “Monster?”  Good Luck.

The word mark application is for “LatinHooter’s” (with an apostrophe), for “bar and restaurant services.”  The application was filed on 5/10/2008, and an Office Action was mailed out 8/26/2008.  No response has been made, but the (pro se) Applicant has until 4/26/2009 to respond.  Predictably, the Office Action is a refusal to register “LatinHooter’s” based on a likelihood of confusion with one of many HOOTERS registrations, including this one for “restaurant and cocktail lounge services.”

My guess is that the application will either be abandoned or ultimately fail to mature into a registration.  If the owner can somehow get around the Office Action and get the application published, I bet a WingHouse dinner that an opposition proceeding will be close behind.

So, aside from the PTO issues, if LATIN HOOTERS continues to use the business name, what might happen?  Obviously, trademark infringement is a viable claim.  As the Examining Attorney wrote in the Office Action:

HOOTERS is a well known mark for restaurants and bars. LATINHOOTERS[sic] looks like a natural expansion of the HOOTERS chain into the Latin market. Consumers would likely think the services are from the same party or related entities.

However, I’m more interested in a dilution claim.  The Trademark Dilution Revision Act clarified the standard for determining whether a mark is “famous” for purposes of dilution, and the Act also clarified that the dilution standard is a likelihood of dilution and not actual dilution.  My initial reaction is that Hooters would be able to prove fame and a likelihood of dilution – by blurring and possibly tarnishment.  I’ll continue to watch the “LatinHooter’s” trademark application and also keep an eye out for any court filings.  If something comes up, I’ll further explore the claims and write another entry.

Until then, whether you like “regular” Hooters or Latin Hooters,  there’s a place for you in sunny Orlando.

8 thoughts on “Latin Hooters

  1. marcorandazza March 3, 2009 / 5:57 pm

    Yeah, LATIN HOOTER’S (I love the apostrophe) might have gotten away with it for a while had it not filed this application. Bad move. I would imagine that HOOTERS’ IP lawyers are drawing up a complaint as we speak.

  2. triangle man March 3, 2009 / 8:33 pm

    clearly a distinct overall commercial ‘impression’ between HOOTERS and LATIN HOOTER’S. especially in overalls….

  3. Rush Limpbag March 4, 2009 / 9:27 am

    Why need a dilution claim when there is likelihood of confusion? Theoretically the dilution is needed only when there is no likelihood of confusion. Also for dilution (at least at the TTAB) a mark must be “unique” and almost a coined mark, plus the diluting mark must be substantially similar. Not sure those requirements are met here. If this case were decided by the TTAB, it would be on the Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion issue, and the Board would decline to address the dilution claim.

  4. Kevin Wimberly March 4, 2009 / 10:02 am

    I definitely agree that LoC is the way to go, but like I said in the post – I think TDRA dilution makes a better hypo. You don’t think the marks are sufficiently similar for dilution? Louis Vuitton lost to Chewy Vuitton not because the marks were dissimilar but because of Chewy’s parody use – the marks must be similar enough to give rise to an association.

  5. marcorandazza March 4, 2009 / 12:04 pm

    It looks like dilution to me.

  6. hbh March 23, 2009 / 12:16 am

    Et tu, Brute?
    (subtle, wait for it …)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s