throbber
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA282217
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`05/06/2009
`
`Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91189245
`Defendant
`PUERTO RICO COFFEE ROASTERS, LLC
`NESTOR M. MENDEZ GOMEZ
`PIETRANTONI MENDEZ & ALVAREZ LLP
`POPULAR CTR 209 MUNOZ RIVERA AVE , 19TH FL
`SAN JUAN, PR 00918
`UNITED STATES
`nmendez@pmalaw.com
`Answer and Counterclaim
`Nestor M. Mendez Gomez
`nmendez@pmalaw.com, mtrelles@pmalaw.com, arivera@pmalaw.com,
`trademarks@pmalaw.com
`/nestor m. mendez gomez/
`05/06/2009
`Answer to Notice of Opposition and Counterclaim.PDF ( 12 pages )(136726
`bytes )
`Attachment to Answer to Notice of Opposition and Counterclaim.pdf ( 16 pages
`)(662607 bytes )
`Registrations Subject to the filing
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`Registration No
`Registrant
`
`3194740
`Cafe Rio, Inc.
`2825 East Cottonwood Parkway, Suite 360
`Salt Lake City, UT 84121
`UNITED STATES
`Goods/Services Subject to the filing
`
`Registration date
`
`01/02/2007
`
`Class 032. First Use: 1997/10/00 First Use In Commerce: 1997/10/00
`All goods and services in the class are requested, namely: Beverages, namely, fresh fruit drinks and
`soft drinks of all varieties for consumption on or off the premises
`
`Registration No
`Registrant
`
`3204242
`Cafe Rio, Inc.
`2825 East Cottonwood Parkway, Suite 360
`Salt Lake City, UT 84121
`UNITED STATES
`Goods/Services Subject to the filing
`
`Registration date
`
`01/30/2007
`
`Class 025. First Use: 1997/10/00 First Use In Commerce: 1997/10/00
`All goods and services in the class are requested, namely: Clothing, namely men's, women's and
`children's clothing, namely, t-shirts, sweatshirts, polo shirts, golf shirts, long-sleeve shirts, jackets,
`turtlenecks, sweaters, caps, baseball caps, golf caps
`
`Registration No
`Registrant
`
`3194739
`Cafe Rio, Inc.
`
`Registration date
`
`01/02/2007
`
`

`
`2825 East Cottonwood Parkway, Suite 360
`Salt Lake City, UT 84121
`UNITED STATES
`Goods/Services Subject to the filing
`
`Class 021. First Use: 2002/10/00 First Use In Commerce: 2002/10/00
`All goods and services in the class are requested, namely: Containers for food and beverages,
`disposable cups, drinking cups, mugs, lids for food service tins
`
`Registration No
`Registrant
`
`3184160
`Cafe Rio, Inc.
`2825 East Cottonwood Parkway, Suite 360
`Salt Lake City, UT 84121
`UNITED STATES
`Goods/Services Subject to the filing
`
`Registration date
`
`12/12/2006
`
`Class 029. First Use: 2003/03/00 First Use In Commerce: 2003/03/00
`All goods and services in the class are requested, namely: Complete prepared meals for
`consumption on or off the premises consisting primarily of beef, poultry, pork, fish or vegetables, and
`guacamole, salads, salads with shredded braised beef, salads with shredded chicken breast, salads
`with shredded pork barbacoa, fajita grilled steak salads, fajita grilled chicken salads and tortilla
`chicken soup, cooked black beans and cooked pinto beans; and, beverages, namely, milk for
`consumption on or off the premises
`Class 030. First Use: 2003/03/00 First Use In Commerce: 2003/03/00
`All goods and services in the class are requested, namely: Burritos, cheese burritos, shredded
`braised beef burritos, shredded chicken burritos, shredded pork barbacoa burritos, fajita grilled steak
`burritos, fajita grilled chicken burritos, enchiladas, tacos, tacos with shredded beef, tacos with
`shredded pork and tacos with pork barbacoa, chips and salsa; and, bakery desserts, namely,
`chocolate cheese flan and lime pie
`
`

`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`RIO ,
`CAFE
`corporation
`
`INC .
`
`,
`
`a
`
`Utah
`
`Opposer
`
`v.
`
`Puerto
`
`Rico Coffee Roasters,
`
`LLC,
`
`a
`
`Puerto
`
`Rico
`
`limited
`
`liability company,
`
`Applicant
`
`NOTICE OF OPPOSITION
`
`Opposition no. 91189245
`
`ANSWER TO NOTICE OF OPPOSITION
`
`COMES
`
`NOW Puerto Rico Coffee Roasters,
`
`LLC
`
`(hereinafter
`
`“P.R. Coffee Roasters” or defendant),
`
`through the undersigned
`
`counsel,
`
`and in response to Cafe Rio Inc.’s (hereinafter “Café
`
`Rio" or plaintiff) Notice of Opposition to the registration of
`
`Serial No. 77062424 respectfully alleges and prays:
`
`1. The first paragraph of the Notice of Opposition requires no
`
`answer, as it alleges plaintiff's address.
`
`In the event an
`
`answer
`
`is required, Defendant asserts that it is without
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the averment.
`
`2. As
`
`to ‘the second paragraph of
`
`the Notice of Opposition,
`
`Defendant
`
`lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form
`
`a belief as to the truth of the averment.
`
`

`
`
`
`Defendant admits that it acquired its interest
`
`in and to
`
`the Cafe Rico mark and design subject of Application Serial
`
`No.
`
`77062424 to by way of an assignment
`
`from Cafe Rico,
`
`Inc. which was received and recorded at the U.S. Patent and
`
`Trademark Office (U.S.P.T.O.) on August 25, 2008.
`
`Defendant admits paragraph 4.
`
`Defendant
`
`admits
`
`that Plaintiff
`
`is
`
`the
`
`owner
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Registration described at paragraph 5,
`
`subject
`
`to the
`
`qualification that Registration No. 2,668,739 disclaimed
`
`the word “cafe” and.
`
`that
`
`the registration includes only
`
`restaurant services.
`
`Defendant
`
`admits
`
`that Plaintiff
`
`is
`
`the
`
`owner of
`
`the
`
`Registration described at paragraph 6,
`
`subject
`
`to the
`
`qualification that Registration. No. 2,671,574 disclaimed
`
`the word “cafe” and that
`
`the registration includes only
`
`restaurant services.
`
`Defendant
`
`admits
`
`that Plaintiff
`
`is
`
`the
`
`owner
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Registration described at paragraph 7,
`
`subject
`
`to the
`
`qualification that Registration No.
`
`3,194,740 disclaimed
`
`the word “cafe” and that the registration includes only the
`
`goods listed at paragraph 7.
`
`Defendant
`
`admits
`
`that Plaintiff
`
`is
`
`the
`
`owner
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Registration described at paragraph 8,
`
`subject
`
`to the
`
`qualification that Registration No. 3,204,242 disclaimed
`
`

`
`
`
`the word “cafe” and that the registration includes only the
`
`goods listed at paragraph 8.
`
`Defendant
`
`admits
`
`that
`
`Plaintiff
`
`is
`
`the
`
`owner
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Registration described at paragraph 9,
`
`subject
`
`to the
`
`qualification that Registration No. 2,389,800 disclaimed
`
`the word “cafe” and that the registration includes only the
`
`goods listed at paragraph 9.
`
`10.
`
`Defendant
`
`admits
`
`that Plaintiff
`
`is
`
`the
`
`owner
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Registration described at paragraph 10,
`
`subject
`
`to the
`
`qualification that Registration No. 2,262,789 disclaimed
`
`the words “cafe Mexican grill” and that
`
`the registration
`
`includes only the goods listed at paragraph 10.
`
`11.
`
`Defendant
`
`admits
`
`that
`
`Plaintiff
`
`is
`
`the
`
`owner
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Registration described at paragraph 11,
`
`subject
`
`to the
`
`qualification that Registration No.
`
`3,194,739 disclaimed
`
`the word cafe and that
`
`the registration includes only the
`
`goods listed at paragraph 11.
`
`12.
`
`Defendant
`
`admits
`
`that Plaintiff
`
`is
`
`the
`
`owner
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Registration described at paragraph 12,
`
`subject
`
`to the
`
`qualification that Registration No.
`
`3,184,160 disclaimed
`
`the word cafe and that
`
`the registration includes only the
`
`goods listed at paragraph 12.
`
`13.
`
`Defendant admits that on December 12, 2006, Café Rico,
`
`Inc.
`
`filed an application pursuant
`
`to Section 1(a) of the Lanham
`
`

`
`
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`Act,
`
`15 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1051 et seq.,
`
`to register the Cafe Rico
`
`mark
`
`and
`
`design, which
`
`application bears
`
`serial
`
`no.
`
`77062424.
`
`Defendant admits paragraph 14.
`
`Defendant admits paragraph 15.
`
`As
`
`to paragraph 16, Defendant admits only that Plaintiff
`
`alleged use of the “Cafe Rio” mark in its applications for
`
`the registrations mentioned in paragraphs 5-10 since 1997.
`
`Defendant denies that Plaintiff's use of the Cafe Rio mark
`
`for
`
`restaurant
`
`services preceded Defendant's use of
`
`the
`
`Cafe Rico mark.
`
`Defendant clarifies that
`
`the application
`
`for registration of the Café Rico mark assigned Serial No.
`
`77062424 asserts that
`
`the mark has been used in commerce
`
`since at
`
`least 2000. Defendant affirmatively alleges that
`
`the actual date of first use in commerce of the Cafe Rico
`
`mark
`
`is much
`
`earlier:
`
`since
`
`at
`
`least
`
`1936.
`
`See,
`
`Cooperativa de Cafeteros de Puerto Rico v. F. Colon Colon,
`
`91 Puerto Rico Reports 380-381
`
`(Supreme Court of Puerto
`
`Rico, 1964)
`
`(“We have painstakingly examined the record of
`
`the oral and documentary evidence admitted at
`
`the hearings
`
`of
`
`the case and in our
`
`judgment it was fully established
`
`that the color scheme, design and words
`
`‘Cafe Rico’
`
`in the
`
`label of appellant's bag have acquired a secondary meaning
`
`in the market of roasted and ground coffee in Puerto Rico
`
`

`
`
`
`as
`
`a
`
`result
`
`of
`
`the
`
`following circumstances:
`
`7
`In
`
`1936
`
`appellant acquired by purchase the trademark ‘Cafe Rico’
`
`registered
`
`in
`
`Puerto Rico
`
`and
`
`the
`
`trademark
`
`‘Rico’
`
`registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`and it has continuously and ostentatiously used it since
`
`then, except
`
`that
`
`in 1948 it registered said mark with a
`
`special design in which it packs and sells its roasted and
`
`ground coffee, which it had been utilizing ever
`
`sincem”)
`
`(emphasis
`
`added)
`
`(copy
`
`of
`
`the
`
`referenced decision is
`
`included as Attachment 1).
`
`Defendant denies paragraph 17.
`
`Defendant denies paragraph 18.
`
`In
`
`response
`
`to paragraph
`
`19, Defendant
`
`reasserts
`
`and
`
`incorporates by reference all
`
`its previous paragraphs in
`
`this Answer.
`
`In response to paragraph 20, Defendant denies
`
`that
`
`the
`
`“Cafe Rio” mark and the “Café Rico” mark are confusingly
`
`similar.
`
`In the alternative,
`
`if the marks are deemed to
`
`be
`
`confusingly similar,
`
`then because Defendant
`
`is
`
`the
`
`senior user of the Cafe Rico mark, its mark must be allowed
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`registration and Plaintiff's marks must be cancelled.
`
`21.
`
`Defendant denies paragraph 21.
`
`Defendant affirmatively
`
`alleges that it is the senior user of
`
`the Café Rico mark
`
`

`
`
`
`and that the use of Cafe Rico precedes the use of Cafe Rio
`
`by some sixty years.
`
`22.Defendant denies paragraph 22.
`
`23.Defendant denies paragraph 23.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`1. Plaintiff's Notice of Opposition fails to state any claim
`
`upon which relief may be granted.
`
`2.Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrines of
`
`laches,
`
`waiver, estoppel, and acquiescence.
`
`3. Plaintiff lacks standing to initiate this proceeding.
`
`4. Plaintiff's registrations of
`
`the Cafe Rio mark are not
`
`valid,
`
`since other‘ persons had used the mark or
`
`it
`
`is
`
`confusingly similar to those of other, senior users.
`
`5.There is no likelihood of confusion between Plaintiff's and
`
`Defendant's marks.
`
`6.In the alternative,
`
`if there is a likelihood of confusion,
`
`then Defendant must be deemed the senior user, as the Café
`
`Rico mark has been continuously used in commerce by it and
`
`its predecessors for over seventy years, whereas Plaintiff
`
`has
`
`been using its Café Rio mark
`
`in connection with
`
`restaurant services at the earliest since 1997.
`
`7. Defendant
`
`reserves the right
`
`to amend its .Answer
`
`to the
`
`Notice of Opposition and its Affirmative Defenses.
`
`

`
`
`
`WHEREFORE Defendant requests that
`
`the Notice of Opposition in
`
`proceeding 91189245 be denied and the Cafe Rico mark, Serial No.
`
`77062424 be registered.
`
`COUNTERCLAIM
`
`Puerto Rico Coffee Roasters, LLC (“P.R. Coffee Roasters” or
`
`Defendant),
`
`a Puerto Rico corporation with an address of Parada
`
`16 1/2, 1103 Fernandez Juncos Ave., Santurce, Puerto Rico 00907,
`
`believes that
`
`it
`
`is being or will be damaged by and requests
`
`cancelation
`
`of Registration
`
`Numbers
`
`M 3,194,740;
`
`3,194,740;
`
`3,204,242; 3,194,739; 3,184,160.
`
`As grounds for the Petition to Cancel, P.R. Coffee Roasters
`
`alleges that:
`
`1.
`
`Puerto Rico Coffee Roasters
`
`and its predecessors in
`
`interest
`
`have been using the mark
`
`“Cafe Rico”
`
`in
`
`commerce
`
`in connection with coffee
`
`since at
`
`least
`
`1936.
`
`2.
`
`Cafe
`
`Rico,
`
`Inc.,
`
`Puerto
`
`Rico Coffee Roasters’
`
`predecessor in interest
`
`in the Café Rico mark applied
`
`for its registration in international class (I.C.)
`
`30
`
`for use
`
`in connection with coffee on December
`
`12,
`
`2006. That application bears Serial No. 77062424.
`
`3.
`
`On January 2, 2007, Counter—defendant Cafe Rio,
`
`Inc.
`
`was
`
`issued Registration No.
`
`3,194,740 for
`
`the mark
`
`“Cafe Rio”
`
`in I.C.
`
`42
`
`for “beverages,
`
`namely fresh
`
`

`
`
`
`fruit drinks
`
`and soft drinks of all varieties for
`
`consumption on or off the premises.” Cafe Rio,
`
`Inc.,
`
`claimed a date of first use in commerce of October
`
`1997.
`
`On January 30, 2007, Counter—defendant Cafe Rio,
`
`Inc.
`
`was
`
`issued Registration No. 3,204,242 for
`
`the mark
`
`“Cafe Rio”
`
`in I.C.
`
`25
`
`for use
`
`in connection with
`
`“clothing,
`
`namely men's,
`
`women's
`
`and
`
`children's
`
`clothing, namely t—shirts,
`
`sweatshirts, polo shirts,
`
`golf shirts,
`
`long—sleeve shirts,
`
`jackets,
`
`turtlenecks,
`
`sweaters, caps, baseball caps, golf caps.” Café Rio,
`
`Inc.,
`
`claimed a date of first use
`
`in commerce of
`
`October 1997.
`
`On January 2, 2007, Counter—defendant Cafe Rio,
`
`Inc.
`
`was_
`
`issued Registration No. 3,194,739 for
`
`the mark
`
`“Cafe Rio”
`
`in I.C.
`
`21
`
`for use
`
`in connection with
`
`“containers for
`
`food and beverages, disposable cups,
`
`drinking cups, mugs,
`
`lids
`
`for
`
`food service tins.”
`
`Cafe Rio,
`
`Inc.,
`
`claimed a date
`
`of
`
`first
`
`use
`
`in
`
`commerce of October 2002.
`
`On December
`
`12,
`
`2006, Counter—defendant Cafe Rio,
`
`Inc., was
`
`issued Registration No. 3,184,160 for
`
`the
`
`mark
`
`“Cafe Rio”
`
`in I.C.
`
`29
`
`and
`
`30
`
`for
`
`use
`
`in
`
`connection
`
`with
`
`“complete
`
`prepared meals
`
`for
`
`

`
`
`
`consumption
`
`on
`
`or
`
`off
`
`the
`
`premises
`
`consisting
`
`primarily of beef, poultry, pork,
`
`fish or vegetables,
`
`and guacamole,
`
`salads,
`
`salads with shredded. braised
`
`beef, salads with shredded chicken breast, salads with
`
`shredded pork barbacoa,
`
`fajita grilled steak salads,
`
`fajita grilled chicken salads
`
`and tortilla chicken
`
`soup,
`
`cooked black beans and cooked pinto beans;
`
`and
`
`beverages, namely, milk for consumption on or off the
`
`premises”(cl.
`
`29);
`
`and “burritos,
`
`cheese burritos,
`
`shredded braised beef burritos,
`
`shredded
`
`chicken
`
`burritos,
`
`shredded pork barbacoa burritos,
`
`fajita
`
`grilled
`
`steak
`
`burritos,
`
`fajita
`
`grilled
`
`chicken
`
`burritos, enchiladas,
`
`tacos,
`
`tacos with shredded beef,
`
`tacos with shredded pork and tacos with pork barbacoa,
`
`chips
`
`and
`
`salsa;
`
`and,
`
`bakery
`
`desserts,
`
`namely,
`
`chocolate cheese flan and lime pie” (cl. 30).
`
`Cafe
`
`Rio,
`
`Inc., claimed a date of first use in commerce of
`
`March, 2003.
`
`Puerto
`
`Rico
`
`Coffee
`
`Roasters,
`
`Inc.,
`
`and
`
`its
`
`predecessors
`
`in interest have used the “Cafe Rico”
`
`mark since at
`
`least 1936,
`
`long before any use of the
`
`“Cafe Rio” mark by counter—defendant
`
`and certainly
`
`before the earliest claimed dates of use in commerce
`
`

`
`
`
`of
`
`the registrations set
`
`forth in paragraphs 3~6 of
`
`this Counterclaim.
`
`To this day, P.R. Coffee Roasters continues using the
`
`“Cafe Rico” mark.
`
`The “Cafe Rico” mark is a well—known mark for coffee
`
`and through many years of consistent and valid use and
`
`a substantial amount of time and effort in advertising
`
`and
`
`promotion
`
`has
`
`become
`
`synonymous with quality
`
`ground coffee.
`
`There is extensive goodwill associated
`
`with the “Cafe Rico” mark.
`
`10.
`
`Cafe Rio,
`
`Inc.’s Registrations 3,194,740; 3,204,242;
`
`3,194,739;
`
`and 3,184,160 must be cancelled on
`
`the
`
`grounds
`
`that
`
`such marks
`
`so resemble the “Cafe Rico”
`
`mark previously used
`
`in commerce
`
`by
`
`P.R. Coffee
`
`Roasters,
`
`Inc., and its predecessors in interest so as
`
`to be
`
`likely to cause
`
`confusion, mistake,
`
`or
`
`to
`
`deceive.
`
`11.
`
`Cafe Rio,
`
`Inc.’s Registrations 3,194,740; 3,204,242;
`
`3,194,739; and 3,184,160, used in connection with the
`
`goods
`
`listed at paragraphs 3-6 of
`
`this Answer are
`
`confusingly similar to the “Café Rico” mark used in
`
`connection with coffee.
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`12.
`
`The “Cafe Rico” mark has priority over the “Cafe Rio"
`
`mark, as the former has been in continuous use since
`
`at least 1936.
`
`13.
`
`Accordingly,
`
`P.R.
`
`Coffee
`
`Roasters
`
`respectfully
`
`requests
`
`that
`
`the Board order
`
`the cancellation of
`
`Registrations
`
`3,194,740;
`
`3,204,242;
`
`3,194,739;
`
`and
`
`3,184,160.
`
`WHEREFORE, P.R. Coffee Roasters prays that
`
`the Board order
`
`the
`
`cancellation
`
`of Registrations
`
`3,194,740;
`
`3,204,242;
`
`3,194,739; and 3,184,160.
`
`Respectfully submitted this 6th day of May 2009.
`
`PIETRANTONI MENDEZ & ALVAREZ LLP
`BANCO POPULAR CENTER
`
`SUITE 1901, 19“ FLOOR
`209 MUNOZ RIVERA AVENUE
`
`SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO 00918
`
`/s/ Nestor M. Méndez Gomez
`NESTOR M. MENDEz—GOMEz ESQ
`
`nmendez@pmalaw.com
`
`W£ /
`
`MARIA D. TRELL S HER
`
`NDEZ
`
`mtrelles@pmalaw.com
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this date, May 6, 2009,
`
`copy of
`
`this document has been sent
`
`to: Grant R. Clayton and Terrence J.
`
`Edwards, Clayton, Howarth & Cannon, P.C., P.O. Box 1909, Sandy,
`
`Utah 84091-1909.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF TRANSMITTAL
`
`I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing is being
`
`filed electronically with the TTAB via ESTTA on this day, May 6,
`
`2009, and also,
`
`this correspondence is being deposited with the
`
`United States Postal Services as first class mail
`
`in an envelope
`
`addressed
`
`to:
`
`Commissioner
`
`for
`
`Trademarks,
`
`PO
`
`Box
`
`1451,
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1451.
`
`PIETRANTONI MENDEZ & ALVAREZ LLP
`BANCO POPULAR CENTER
`
`SUITE 1901, 19“ FLOOR
`209 MUNOZ RIVERA AVENUE
`
`SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO 00918
`
`/s/ Néstor M. Méndez Gomez
`NESTOR M. MENDEZ-GOMEZ ESQ
`
`nmendez@pmalaw.com
`
`
`
`MARIA D. TRELLES HER A DEZ
`
`mtrelleS@pmalaw.com
`
`12
`
`

`
`360
`
`THE BANK or NOVA SCOTIA 12. VELEZ RULLAN
`
`[91 P.R.R. 347
`
`the warehouse or pier in San Juan to appellee’s bakery in
`Utuado.
`
`in order to receive the flour,
`(3) As a general rule,
`Laguna had to sign a “delivery check” or receipt according
`to the practice in this type of business, so as to establish
`that he had authority, at least implied, for that purpose.
`
`(4) Appellee accepted drafts from Soldevila after the
`flour was received, and at times, in order to receive it, but
`in all of these cases of drafts he paid the flour invoices at
`1S3old1<:vila’s oflice, and then the latter paid the drafts at the
`an .
`(5) It is possible that Laguna signed drafts on other
`occasions and that in the two drafts in question Laguna’s
`signature was taken because “it was well known that he was
`absolutely trusted by Vélez Rullan.”
`
`(6) No evidence was oifered as to the fact that, prior to
`or at the time of delivering the flour corresponding to the
`two drafts which Laguna accepted on behalf of appellee,
`the latter had any knowledge of said acceptance.
`
`(7) There was evidence that appellee paid Soldevila,
`through Alvarado,
`the invoices covered by the drafts in
`question.
`
`(8) The third draft presented in evidence dates from five
`years prior to the two drafts, on which the cause of action is
`based in this case, and it was not definitively proved whether
`appellee’s name signed on the back of the instrument was
`
`written by him or by Laguna, and whether appellant re-
`ceived the amount thereof from appellee, or from Soldevila’s
`oflice, according to the practice established by said office.
`_ In the light of this evidence, we cannot conclude that the
`trial court erred in holding that Laguna lacked implied
`authority to sign the drafts in question, or in failing to
`decide that appellee was precluded from impeaching Laguna’s
`authority to accept
`the drafts on his behalf, since when
`appellee accepted and retained the flour in question, he had
`
`Nov. 17, 1964]
`
`COOPERATIVA CAFETEROS v. CoL6N COLON
`
`361
`
`no knowledge of the acceptance of said drafts nor performed
`any act to induce appellant to discount the drafts and to
`change his position.
`In view of the foregoing, the judgment of the Superior
`Court, Arecibo Part, which,
`in turn, affirms that of the
`District Court, Utuado Part, will be affirmed and the at-
`torney’s fees will be reduced to the amount of $250.
`
`
`COOPERATIVA DE CAFETEROS DE PUERTO RICO, Plaintiff and
`Appellant, v. F. COLON COLON, Defendant and Appellee.
`No. R-62-92.
`Decided November 17, 1964.
`
`2.
`
`1. TRADE—MARKS, ETC.——MARKS AND NAMES SUBJECT or OWNERSHIP——IN
`GENERAL—NArURE or TRADE—MARKs.
`The term Rico used in a trade-mark of ground cofiee is not record-
`able because it is an unrecordable descriptive term pursuant to the
`provisions of the Trade-Mark Act now in force.
`ID.———ID.——DOCTRINE or SECONDARY MEANING.
`This jurisdiction has adopted the doctrine of secondary meaning of a
`descriptive term, from which may arise a new property right con-
`cerning a trade-mark entitled to protection.
`3. WORDS AND PHRASES.
`Doctrine of Secondary Meaning.——In connection with trade-marks,
`the doctrine of secondary meaning of a descriptive term—for the
`purposes of giving protection to an unrecordable trade-mark—
`presupposes that a word or phrase which originally and in that sense
`primarily is incapable of exclusive appropriation with reference to
`an article on the market, because it is geographically or otherwise
`descriptive, might nevertheless have been used so long and so
`exclusively by one producer with reference to his article that in that
`trade and to that branch of the purchasing public the word or phrase
`has come to mean that the article was his product; in other words,
`has come to be, to said producer, his trade-mark.
`4. TRADE—MARKS, ETC.——MARKS AND NAMES SUBJECT or OWNERSHIP——
`DOCTRINE or SECONDARY MEANING.
`The determination of Whether a descriptive word or phrase used to
`designate an article in the market has acquired a secondary?‘ meaning
`is a question of fact.
`ID.——INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR COMPE’1‘ITION——AC’l‘IONS——PRESUMP-
`TIONS AND BURDEN or PROOF.
`In a suit for violation of a trade-mark the evidence should be consid-
`
`5.
`
`
`
`

`
`362
`
`COOPERATIVA CAFETEROS v. CoL6N CoL6N
`
`[91 P.R.R. 361
`
`Nov. 17, 1964]
`
`COOPERATIVA CAFETEROS o. CoL6N CoLoN
`
`363
`
`ered in favorable terms to the plaintiff and it devolves on defendant
`to justify the use of the trade-mark and to show that he has exer-
`cised his right with reasonable respect
`towards the rights of the
`owner of the trade-mark.
`
`6.
`
`ID.——MARKS AND NAMEs SUBJECT or 0WNERSHIP—-DOCTRINE or SECOND-
`ARY MEANING.
`
`Different ways of establishing the secondary meaning of a descriptive
`word—unrecordable as a trade-mark—used to identify a product in
`the market—which gives rise to a property right subject to protection
`—are explained in the opinion.
`7. ID.—ID.—ID.
`
`The evidence, as weighed by this Court and as recited in the opinion,
`is suflicient to conclude that in this case it Was fully established that
`the color scheme, design, and the words Café Rico in the label of
`appellant’s bag to sell his product, have acquired a secondary mean-
`ing in the market of roasted and ground coffee in Puerto Rico, which
`create in his favor a property right subject to protection.
`8. APPEAL———REVTEW——QUESTIONS or
`FACT, VERDICTS AND FINDINGS——
`WEIGHING OF Ev1DENCE——FINDINGs THERE0N—0N DOCUMENTARY
`EVIDENCE.
`
`Although the weighing by a trial court of the oral evidence merits
`our greatest respect and consideration, it is not less true that in the
`Weighing of the documentary evidence this Court is in the same posi-
`tion as the trial court.
`(Central Igualdad, Inc. V. Sec. of the Treas-
`ury, 83:44, followed.)
`9. TRADE—MARKS, E'1‘C.——INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR COMPETITION-—AC-
`TIoNs-—PREsUMP'rIoNs AND BURDEN OF PROOF.
`In an injunction proceeding enjoining defendant from violating a
`trade-mark, any doubt as to the efl"ectiveness of the remedy sought
`should be decided against the defendant.
`ID.——ID.—WHAT CONSTITUTES ILLEGAL on UNFAIR COMPETITION—RIGHT
`TO USE OF NAME.
`
`10.
`
`The evidence, as Weighed by this Court and as recited in the opinion,
`is sufilcient to conclude that in this case the defendant set out with
`the purpose of trading on the basis of the closest imitation to plain-
`tiff’s trade-mark and label on the bag of coffee, in order to increase
`his sales through the unfair exploitation of plaintiff’s good will,
`creating a confusion in the public consumer, which is
`sufficient
`ground to establish a case of unfair competition.
`INJUNC'1‘ION——ACTIONS FOR INJUNCTION——ESTOPPEL—LACHES.
`The evidence, as summarized in the opinion, does not
`justify the
`conclusion of the trial court that appellant
`is not entitled to any
`equitable remedy because of his delay in requesting it and his behav-
`ior indicative of lack of clean hands.
`
`11.
`
`APPEAL from judgment of Cdndido Ceballos, Judge (Arecibo),
`dismissing complaint
`in injunction proceeding and action
`for damages. Reversed and substituted granting the com-
`plaint and ordering the issuance of a permanent injunction
`restraining defendant from performing certain acts, as well
`as ordering him to pay attorney’s fees in the amount of
`$1,000.
`
`Héctor Gonzdlez Blanes for appellant. Abelardo Romdn Font
`for appellee.
`
`Division composed of Mr. Chief Justice Negrén Fernandez,
`Mr. Justice Blanco Lugo, and Mr. Justice Ramirez Bages.
`
`MR. JUSTICE RAMiREz BAGES‘ delivered the opinion of the Court.
`
`The following are the questions to be considered in
`this case:
`
`the registered trade-mark “Café
`(1) Whether or not
`Rico” is valid and effective.
`
`If it is not, Whether or not it acquired a secondary
`(2)
`meaning which justifies its protection against infringement
`by appellee F. Colon, competitor of appellant Cooperativa
`de Cafeteros de Puerto Rico,
`in the distribution and sale
`of roasted and ground coffee in the local market.
`
`If said mark actually acquired such meaning We
`(3)
`must decide whether the label used by appellee in his coffee
`bag is so similar to that used by appellant
`in his,
`that
`it actually causes confusion in the market and to the con-
`sumers; or Whether there exists the reasonable possibility
`for such confusion.
`
`In case such confusion has been caused, whether
`(4)
`defendant’s action constitutes unfair competition to the
`
`detriment of appellant, which justifies its restraint and the
`awarding of damages that appellant may have suffered.
`
`Appellant requests that appellee and others be enjoined
`from packing and trading, using the bags or containers
`
`they are using, similar to those used by appellant in its
`coffee business, or from selling coffee in such containers or
`
`
`
`

`
`364
`
`COOPERATIVA CAFETEROS 12. CoL6N CoL6N
`
`[91 P.R.R. 361
`
`Nov. 17, 1964]
`
`COOPERATIVA CAFETEROS v. CoL6N CoL6N
`
`365
`
`bags because the word “Rico” has been conspicuously dis-
`played using a design and color scheme-—red and black—
`substantially identical to those corresponding to appellant’s
`trade-mark and trade name, which the latter has been using
`for years and which have become well known to the public
`and identified with appellant’s product so that the presen-
`tation or exhibition of such containers causes confusion in
`
`the market and to the consumers in general due to the obvi-
`ous resemblance with the bags in which appellant sells its
`coffee. It alleges that in this manner appellee profits by
`and unjustly enriches himself with the credit and good will
`acquired by appellant’s coffee, inducing the public, by means
`of unfair competition,
`to buy his product under the mis-
`taken belief that it is plaintiff’s product, as well as dis-
`turbing and creating dangerous inconveniences to appellant
`in the conduct of its business. Lastly, appellant alleges that
`for said reasons it has suffered damages amounting to
`$100,000, which payment it requests.
`Appellee specifically denied the material facts of said
`complaint and as special defenses alleged, in synthesis, that
`the registration of the trade-mark “Rico” was illegal, since
`it is descriptive in nature; that the color scheme red and
`black is not and could not be part of said trade-mark, since
`it is an element of mere decorative function and it has been
`
`the
`used by appellee prior to appellant and then by all
`roasted coffee industry;
`that the words “Puro de Puerto
`Rico,” which appellant uses and claims as part of its trade-
`mark, was not included in its registration and it has used
`it only since a short time ago, and it cannot appropriate it
`for its exclusive use; that the use, by appellant, of the trade-
`mark “Rico” for its roasted and ground coffee and “Puerto
`Rico” for its raw coffee, and its advertising campaign in
`
`the papers, radio, and television using said marks and de-
`
`sign in a context which illegally imparts to the trade-mark
`
`“Rico” a geographical meaning, gives the false and mali-
`
`
`
`cious impression to the public that the coffee produced and
`packed by appellant is the only pure Puerto Rican coffee
`in the market, which is not true; and thus tends to monopo-
`lize the use of the word “Rico” and the pure Puerto Rican
`roasted coffee industry, causing damage to the other pro-
`ducers, and specifically to appellee;
`that as a result
`the
`sales of cofiee decreased during the years 1957-1958, which
`appellee has been realizing for 16 years in containers with
`the same color scheme, general appearance and éoloring of
`the container of which appellant complains,
`in addition to
`the mark “Flor de Borinquen”; that in order to confront
`said competition in 1958 appellee modified the label on his
`container for the sole purpose of making more prominent
`the words “Cafe de Puerto Rico” and also made more promi-
`nent for easy perception that appellee is the producer of
`said coffee and the name of the place of production of said
`coffee;
`that subsequent
`to the commencement of this liti-
`gation appellant has changed the general appearance of its
`container eliminating a noticeable difference that existed
`between litigants’ containers,
`thus increasing any existing
`possibility of confusion; that in view of the foregoing appel-
`lant has not acted in good faith and with clean hands;
`that appellee’s intention was not to pass off his product as
`appellant’s and in order to make the difference between the
`two containers more noticeable the former has ordered that
`in his new containers the word “Puerto” be used instead of
`the abbreviation “Pto.” and that his trade-mark “Flor de
`
`Borinquen” be printed in larger letters and appellee’s name
`clearer and more perceptible. By Way of counterclaim appel-
`
`lee requests that appellant be enjoined from continuing to
`perform said actions and causing the damages alleged,
`in-
`cluding those suffered as a result of and while a temporary
`restraining order requested by appellant against appellee
`was in effect; that the mark “Rico” be declared null and
`
`void, and its registration cancelled; and that appellant be
`
`
`
`

`
`366
`
`COOPERATIVA CAFETEROS v. CoL6N CoL6N
`
`[91 P.R.R. 361
`
`Nov. 17, 1964]
`
`COOPERATIVA CAFETEROS v. CoL6N CoL6N
`
`367
`
`ordered to pay the amount of $100,000 which appellee claims
`for damages. Appellant denied the facts alleged in said
`counterclaim.
`
`After numerous incidents and a lengthy trial in which
`the parties introduced extensive documentary and oral evi-
`dence,
`the trial court finally dismissed the complaint
`in
`this case and declared appellee’s voluntary dismissal of his
`counterclaim with prejudice to the injunction and the order
`of cancellation of the mark and the registration, and with-
`out prejudice as to the damages alleged, through a lengthy
`and painstaking decision in which it made the following
`essential findings of fact:
`.
`r
`(1) That appellant acquired by purchase and was util-
`izing the trade-mark “Rico” which registration expired in
`1944 without it being renewed.
`(2) That in 1948 appellant registered the trade-mark
`“Rico” with a special design of said word, which registra-
`tion is still
`in force and that is the trade-mark to which
`
`appellant refers.
`(3) That the notices to the public for the registration
`of said trade-mark and its renewal were made in black ink
`on white paper without any reference to the color or color
`scheme of the container; but in the petition for registration
`appellant presented a facsimile of the special design in black
`ink on red paper, but the words “Puro de Puerto Rico” did
`not appear in the advertisements or the facsimiles of the
`label of said registered trade-mark, which expression appel-
`lee claims as his alleged slogan or trade name; nor was it
`proved how long appellant has been using the words “Puro
`de Puerto Rico” on said containers to which it has previously
`referred; that the words “Café Rico” on a white background
`on the covers of appellant’s bags and the phrases on the nar-
`row side. of said bag are characteristic of the container which
`
`were not included in the aforesaid petition for registration of
`the trade-mark or in the aforementioned notices to the public.
`(4) That since 1945 appellee has used red containers
`or bags and the trade-marks “Flor de Borinquen” and
`“Dilari,” which have not been registered; that since 1946
`he has been using the color scheme of which appellant com-
`plains, except that the words “Puro de Puerto Rico” were
`set 017‘ as a dominant factor or principal element in a dif-
`ferent arrangement of letters and the type size of the trade-
`mark “Flor ole Borinquen” was made smaller.
`
`(5) That from 19

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket