ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1402079
`
`Filing date:
`
`12/15/2024
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding no.
`
`91294278
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Defendant
`I Love Daiquiris LLC
`
`STEVEN BROWN
`I LOVE DAIQUIRIS LLC
`PO BOX 200575
`ARLINGTON, TX 76006
`UNITED STATES
`Primary email: stevenearlbrown@gmail.com
`Secondary email(s): info@ilovedaiquiris.com
`8177149285
`
`Answer
`
`Steven Brown
`
`stevenearlbrown@gmail.com, info@ilovedaiquiris.com
`
`/Steven Brown/
`
`12/15/2024
`
`Attachments
`
`Notice of Opposition 91294278 Answers.pdf(1123973 bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
`TRADEMARKTRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`BODEGASCARAS.A
`
`Opposer,
`
`Proceeding No. 91294278
`
`VS.
`
`ANSWER
`
`| LOVE DAIQUIRIS LLC
`
`Applicant
`
`APPLICANT’S ANSWER TO NOTICE OF OPPOSITION
`
`In responseto the Notice of Opposition filed in this matter, Applicant responds and
`
`answersas follows:
`
`Answering paragraph 1 of the Notice of Opposition, Applicant admits the allegations
`
`thereof.
`
`Answering paragraph2 ofthe Notice of Opposition, Applicant admits the allegations
`
`thereof.
`
`Answering paragraph3 of the Notice of Opposition, Applicant admits the allegations
`
`thereof.
`
`Answering paragraph 4 of the Notice of Opposition, Applicant admitstheallegations
`
`thereof.
`
`Answering paragraph 5 of the Notice of Opposition, Applicant admits the allegations
`
`thereof.
`
`Answering paragraph 6 of the Notice of Opposition, Applicant denies each and ever
`
`allegation contained therein.
`
`ANSWER - 1
`
`

`

`Answering paragraph 7 of the Notice of Opposition, Applicant denies each and ever
`
`allegation contained therein.
`
`Answering paragraph 8 of the Notice of Opposition, Applicant denies each and ever
`
`allegation contained therein.
`
`Answering paragraph 9 of the Notice of Opposition, Applicant denies each and ever
`
`allegation contained therein.
`
`Affirmative Defenses
`
`In further answer to the Notice, the Applicant asserts that:
`
`First Affirmative Defense
`
`10.
`
`The Applicant’s ARUMBA mark and the pleaded ARUMA markof Opposerare not
`
`confusingly similar. Any similarity,if at all, between Applicant’s mark and the
`
`pleaded mark of Opposer is in the portion “ARUM”of both marks. The “BA” sound
`
`in the Applicant’s ARUMBA markis very different from the “A” sound in the
`
`Opposer’s ARUMA mark. The Applicant’s ARUMBA product is made with added rum
`
`flavoring.
`
`It is pronounced A-RUM-BA,to denote the rum flavoring. Per the
`
`Opposer, the ARUMAproductis a Quechua Indian word meaning the “night”.
`
`It is
`
`pronounced either “A-RU-MA”, “ARU-MA”, or “A-RUM-A”. None of these
`
`pronunciations are similar in sound to Applicant’s product. Purchasers of goodssold
`
`along with the relevant marks are careful and sophisticated, thus making the
`
`likelihood of confusion, mistake or deception highly unlikely amongst potential
`
`overlapping consumers.
`
`Second Affirmative Defense
`
`11.
`
`The Applicant’s ARUMBAproductis a “colorless” product madefrom oranges.It is
`
`ANSWER - 2
`
`packagedin 5-gallon cardboard boxesor 4-liter plastic bottles. The Opposer’s
`
`

`

`ARUMAproductis a “dark red” product made from grapes.
`
`It is packaged in 750m!
`
`glass bottles. Consumers would not confuse or conclude the parties’ products share
`
`a common sourceor affiliation or connection.
`
`Third Affirmative Defense
`
`12.
`
`The Applicant’s ARUMBAproductis a “Other Than Standard Orange Wine” with
`
`addedartificial rum flavoring.
`
`It is used as a neutral tasting base for daiquiri and
`
`margarita type cocktails.
`
`It is in Class 33 of USPTO. It is correctly described as a
`
`“wine-based cocktail”. The Opposer’s ARUMA product is a Malbec wine. This is a
`
`medium to full-bodied “red wine”.
`
`It is in Class 33 of USPTO.
`
`It is incorrectly
`
`described as a “wine”. The correct description being “Red Wine”. Asa result, the
`
`goodscovered by the Applicant are not related to those of the Opposerand would
`
`not lead to any likelihood of confusion.
`
`Relief Requested
`
`WHEREFORE,the Applicant asks that this Opposition proceeding be dismissed forthwith.
`
`Dated this 12/15/2024
`
` iia ((eoun)
`
`Steven Brown (Owner)
`
`ANSWER - 3
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge

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.

We are unable to display this document.

PTO Denying Access

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket