• Home
  • 1st Annual Symposium
  • About
  • Available Positions
  • Issues
    • Vol. 4 Issue 2
    • Vol. 4 Issue 1
    • Vol. 3 Issue 3
    • Vol. 3, Issue 2
    • Vol. 3, Issue 1
    • Vol. 2, Issue 3
    • Vol. 2, Issue 2
    • Vol. 2, Issue 1
    • Vol. 1, Issue 1
  • Staff
    • 2009-2010 Staff
    • 2010-2011 Staff
    • 2011-2012 Staff
    • 2012-2013 Staff
  • Submissions
  • Subscribe
Featured Article

A featured article from the current issue of the Intellectual Property Brief.

Daily Blog

A daily blog of IP-related news and issues

Articles

All of the Intellectual Property Brief’s published articles. All articles are hand-selected from outside submissions and from our very own IPB staff members.

Issues

PDF versions of each of the Intellectual Property Brief’s issues.

Short Circuit

Case-by-case summaries of intellectual property related opinions from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Home » Daily Blog, Featured, Trademark

Cupcake Wars Judge in Lawsuit Over Store Name

Submitted by Chris McDonough on February 22, 2012 – 11:33 AM4838One Commenthttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2012%2F02%2F22%2Fcupcake-wars-judge-in-lawsuit-over-store-name-2%2FCupcake+Wars+Judge+in+Lawsuit+Over+Store+Name2012-02-22+16%3A33%3A32Chris+McDonoughhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D4838

I haven’t followed the whole cupcake fad with any particular interest; I’m more of a frozen yogurt fan.  But it’s no surprise that when a type of product rises in popularity, the rise in competition will lead to intellectual property disputes.  In particular, the spike in cupcake stores throughout the country will inevitably lead to disputes over trademarks.

 

Candace Nelson, judge in the “Cupcake Wars” TV show has been involved in a trademark dispute over the name of a cupcake store in Fairfield, Connecticut.  The store, formerly known as Pink Sprinkles will now be renamed to “Pink Cupcake Shack” as part of a settlement in a trademark infringement action, claiming that the name would cause confusion with Nelson’s company, “Sprinkles Cupcake.”  Sprinkles Cupcake opened its first store in 2005 and has achieved national recognition, aided perhaps by Nelson’s presence on Cupcake Wars and exposure on shows Oprah and Martha Stewart’s.

 

This is a good old likelihood-of-confusion issue.  So if it had gone to court, that court would have examined how close the marks were, how well-known the original mark was, the similarity of the markets involved and whether there was evidence of real confusion.  Here, we don’t know whether there was any actual confusion, but it’s clear that both were in the same market and I would assume that the hypothetical average purchaser of cupcakes isn’t particularly discerning.  The original mark seems fairly strong, since it belongs to a well-known cupcake maker with multiple stores who has been featured on national television.  That said, aren’t there only so many appropriate names for a cupcake store?  “Pink Sprinkles” is dangerously close to being merely descriptive, which would mean Nelson would have had to show the words “Pink Sprinkles” were associated with his stores in the minds of the marketplace.

 

There’s no particular moral to the story, other than demonstrating the way the national trademark system can be clumsy at times.  It seems unlikely that Pink Sprinkles would ever have come into direct competition with Sprinkles Cupcake, and it’s perhaps unreasonable for a company in Connecticut to be aware of a somewhat similarly named store in California.  That said, maybe Sprinkles Cupcake is famous enough in the cupcake world to deserve that protection.


 

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare

About the Author:

Author: Chris McDonough

Chris McDonough is a 3L at the Washington College of Law, and is currently unsure of his final destination, having interests in human rights, employment law and IP. He received his undergraduate degree in English from UC Irvine, and likes science fiction and watching lots of TV (in what little spare time he has these days).

Chris McDonough has written 32 posts for the IPB.

4838One Commenthttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2012%2F02%2F22%2Fcupcake-wars-judge-in-lawsuit-over-store-name-2%2FCupcake+Wars+Judge+in+Lawsuit+Over+Store+Name2012-02-22+16%3A33%3A32Chris+McDonoughhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D4838 »

  • Laroerego says:
    February 26, 2012 at 5:49 PM

    steroid pharm
    herb pharm
    what is big pharm
    watson pharm
    sirtis pharm
    pharm anabolics promotion code
    herb pharm williams or
    online pharm tech school
    bio pharm
    vusion barrier pharm
    brand pharm
    biomolecular pharm inc
    j pharm teaching
    resume pharm
    elephant pharm
    elite pharm
    pet pharm
    awp and pharm
    pharm site
    pharm parties
    chem pharm bull japan
    pharm
    aero pharm
    caraco pharm
    cherry pharm
    forest pharm thyroid
    herb pharm employees
    wyeth pharm
    melissa salinas pharm d
    norwich pharm
    pharm med dekalb mississippi
    pharm degree online
    pharmax pharmex pharm x probiotics
    serle pharm
    vet pharm idaho
    http://bluepillstab.com

    Reply to this comment »

Leave a comment!

Click here to cancel reply »

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.

Copyright »

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Mr. Brainwash’s works recently joined the increasing number of cases on appropriation art after photographer Dennis Morris sued the street artist for use of his 1977 picture of Sid Vicious.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Patents »

Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business

Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business

Shortly after the oral arguments between Monsanto and Bowman, WCL hosted both parties for a post argument discussion. Recently the Supreme Court ruled on the case, requiring annual purchases of Monsanto’s soybeans.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Trademark »

Can “Boston Strong” be Trademarked?

Can “Boston Strong” be Trademarked?

Following the explosions on April 15, “Boston Strong” emerged as a viral hashtag on Twitter, a rallying cry at public events, and a logo on all kinds of apparels. It does not take too long for business opportunists to take advantage of this national tragedy.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Facebook

Accepting Submissions

The IP Brief is currently accepting submissions. We are looking for papers that address a legal topic relating to any area of intellectual property. Please submit completed papers and a cover page with the name and title of the article to ipbrief [at] wcl.american.edu. Any questions can also be sent to this e-mail address.

Blogroll

  • American University Washington College of Law
  • Carrollogos
  • Copyright Blog
  • GamePolitics
  • Intellectual Property Watch
  • PatentlyO
  • Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
  • Spicy IP
  • The TTABlog®
  • ©ollectanea

Tags

Archives

  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • January 2010

Random Posts

Keep Off Kardashians! Kim Kardashian Sues The Gap Over Alleged Misappropriation of Celebrity Persona A Few Bad Apples: Judge cuts $1.05 billion jury award by $450 million in Apple v. Samsung Tim Tebow’s Monopoly on Prayer: Confusion Surrounding “Tebowing” and the Reach of Trademark Protection Groupon, Yelp Sued by Patent Troll The Federal Circuit Defers to the Lower Court, Invalidates Social Networking Patent Commercial Parasite: Binder v. Disability Group, Inc. Where Does Rioja Wine Really Come From? Spanish Court Rules in Favor of YouTube in Copyright Case The Cooks Source Scandal Creator of Iconic Guevara Image Leads Copyright Rebellion
(refresh random posts)

Latest Video Post

Relatively New Anti-Piracy PSA: Another Analogy Comparison of Piracy to Stealing Cars or an Effective Message?

Recent Posts

  • Can “Boston Strong” be Trademarked?
  • Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business
  • Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million
  • Appropriating Sid Vicious
  • Chick-Fil-A’s ‘Eat Mor Chikin’ Trumps Kale-Promotion Slogan

Twitter

  • No public Twitter messages.
  • Copy / Paste
  • Site Search
  • Wikipedia
  • Google
  • Facts
  • Amazon
  • eBay
  • Outlook
  • Gmail
  • Y! Mail
  • Twitter
  • Search & Share
Powered by WordPress | Log in | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS) | Arthemia Premium theme by Colorlabs Project
The American University Intellectual Property Brief is licensed by the staff of the American University Intellectual Property Brief under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License. IPBrief.net is hosted by Dan Rosenthal. For technical queries, contact dan@danrosenthal.org

Creative Commons License