Fight for ‘Peace Love and Juice’ mark continues after CAFC ruling

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has remanded a dispute over a trademark application for ‘Peace Love and Juice’ after concluding that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) failed to properly assess the strength of the opponent’s marks.

On Monday, July 20, the federal circuit issued its unanimous decision, stating that the TTAB should re-hear the wrangle between applicant Juice Generation and challenger GS Enterprises.

The dispute concerns drinks maker Juice Generation’s application for ‘Peace Love and Juice’ in connection with juice making services.

GS Enterprises opposed the application, citing its family of registered trademarks including ‘Peace & Love’ and ‘All You Need Is Peace & Love’, used for restaurant services.

In June 2014 the TTAB rejected Juice Generation’s application on the grounds that it would cause a likelihood of confusion with GS Enterprises’s marks.

But on appeal by Juice Generation, the federal circuit disagreed with the TTAB’s decision. Writing the majority opinion, Judge Richard Taranto said that in its justification for rejecting Juice Generation’s application, the TTAB failed to properly assess the strength of GS Enterprises’s marks.

Juice Generation had claimed that the use of the phrase ‘Peace and Love’ within the food and drinks industry is widespread and that for the TTAB to argue that the words ‘Peace’ and Love’ were the dominant portions of the opposition marks was incorrect.

Taranto agreed and also criticised the TTAB’s decision to ignore the importance of the word ‘Juice’ in the applied-for mark.

“It does not display any consideration of how the three-word phrase in Juice Generation’s mark may convey a distinct meaning—including by having connotations in consumers’ minds—from the two-word phrase used by GS Enterprises.

“A remand is needed for the board to undertake that consideration, along with consideration of the evidence of third-party use. We cannot deem the board’s errors harmless,” he added.

Kieran Doyle, partner at law firm Cowan Liebowitz & Latman, said one of the significant parts of the case is Juice Generation's use of evidence to show third-party use of similar marks to GS Enterprises's and therefore highlight the weakness of those marks.

"Proving widespread use of a third-party's mark is extremely expensive and labourious and defeats the role of the TTAB to be cost-effective," he said.

Neither Juice Generation nor Jeremy Craft, partner at law firm Craft Chu and representing GS Enterprises, had responded to a request for comment at the time of publication, but we will update the story should either party get in touch.