What Happens if Your Restaurant’s Name Conflicts with a Packaged Food or Beverage Brand – the Goods Services Problem?

When Restaurant Names Conflict With Packaged Food and Beverage Brands

Restaurant owners often assume that if another company is selling packaged food or beverages under a similar name, there must automatically be a trademark conflict. The reality is more nuanced. 

When a restaurant name collides with a packaged product brand, the key legal question isn’t whether the names match, but whether consumers are likely to believe the goods and services come from the same source.

Restaurant vs. Food or Beverage Brand: Not Automatically Related

Relatedness of goods/services is one of the key factors in determining likelihood of confusion and trademark infringement. Relatedness of goods/services does not require that the goods/services offered by the parties are identical, or even competitive. All that is required for goods/services to be deemed related under the likelihood of confusion analysis is a finding that consumers would be confused as to their source, in other words, whether consumers would believe that the goods/services are the type that would potentially come from a single company. An example might be cigars and ashtrays. Those products are not the same and are made from entirely different materials and with different processes, but most major cigar companies sell cigars and ashtrays under a single trademark.  

That said, the USPTO and federal courts have repeatedly made one thing clear: there is no automatic rule that restaurant services and packaged food or beverages are considered related just because they share a name.

When Can Restaurants and Packaged Brands Share the Same Name?

In other words:

• A bottled beverage brand and a restaurant can share a name without necessarily creating a trademark conflict.
• But in the right circumstances, they absolutely can collide.
• The difference comes down to context, the way the brand is used in the real world, evidence, and the presentation of that evidence.

The In re Coors Case: Understanding the ‘Something More’ Standard

In the In re Coors Brewing Co. case, the hallmark case on confusion between bottled/canned beer and restaurant services, the United States Circuit Court for the Federal Circuit concluded that the evidentiary record must show “something more” than that similar or even identical marks are used for food products and for restaurant services. In re Coors Brewing Co., 343 F.3d 1340, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In practice, that “something more” standard is hard to pin down and often involves looking for real marketplace signals that consumers would expect the restaurant and the packaged product to come from the same source. 

What Courts Examine to Find Trademark Conflicts Between Restaurants and Product Brands

To prove a conflict between a restaurant and a food or beverage product, the party asserting infringement must show “something more” than a name match. Evidence that can tip the scales includes:

• The restaurant sells the same food or beverage under its own brand (e.g., house beer, house coffee, house sauces)
• The restaurant promotes or packages food or drink using the same trademark
• Industry patterns showing consumers commonly expect overlap between the goods and services
• Registrations showing a single brand used for both restaurant services and packaged products
• The brand is strong and distinctive, making association more likely

Without that additional connection, trademark conflict becomes far less likely.

A Key Example: Breweries, Beer, and Restaurants

In the In re Coors Brewing Co. case, the court rejected a trademark conflict between beer and restaurant services because the evidence didn’t show meaningful overlap between the industries.

The USPTO trademark examiner pointed to examples of brewpubs selling beer under house brands, and of trademark registrations covering both beer and restaurant services. But Coors provided evidence that while there are about 1,450 brewpubs and microbreweries in the United States, there are over 800,000 restaurants, which means that brewpubs and microbreweries account for less than two-tenths of one percent of restaurants. In other words, even though some restaurants brew or sell their own beer, that behavior was too uncommon to assume consumers would make that connection in the marketplace.

The takeaway? A few examples are not enough. The overlap must be meaningful, not theoretical, and creative presentation of evidence can be the key factor. 

When Trademark Conflict Is Found

Trademark conflicts between restaurants and packaged food or beverage brands are more likely when there is a natural, obvious brand relationship. Courts have found conflicts when:

• A restaurant actively branded its bar or menu items with the same mark as a beverage (e.g., a restaurant known for selling its own branded vodka).
• A coffee house name included the product itself (e.g., “Coffee House” in the mark).
• A restaurant sold or promoted packaged versions of its own sauces, syrups, or condiments.
• The product at issue was the kind of item restaurants often sell under their own private label (e.g., sauces, coffee, syrup).
• The restaurant name itself signaled that it specializes in the very product also being sold in stores.

In these scenarios, consumers could reasonably assume a shared source, even if one product is consumed on-premises and the other is sold at retail.

When Trademark Conflict Is Not Found

Trademark challenges are harder to sustain when:

• The restaurant and product occupy totally different commercial spaces.
• There is no evidence the restaurant sells, endorses, or private-labels the product.
• The overlap is based only on a shared name, without marketplace behavior connecting the brands.
• The goods aren’t commonly associated with restaurant private labeling (e.g., ice cream vs hot dog restaurants).

Courts have rejected trademark conflicts under these circumstances, emphasizing that similar names alone do not create confusion.

What This Means for Restaurant Owners

If you’re launching or growing a restaurant brand, this matters for several reasons:

1. A packaged brand sharing your name is not automatically infringement. You need marketplace evidence, not just a matching trademark.
2. Your own brand behavior can influence the outcome. If you sell signature sauces, coffees, beer, seasonings, or other packaged goods under your restaurant name, you may be expanding your trademark footprint into the product space.
3. The more famous, unique, and connected your brand is to specific goods, the stronger your trademark becomes.
4. Trademark clearance isn’t just about searching names. It’s about predicting how a court or the USPTO will view real-world consumer expectations.
5. If a conflict arises, facts matter more than assumptions. Evidence of overlap, how consumers buy, think, and associate the brands, is what determines risk.

Bottom Line

A restaurant name and a packaged food or beverage brand can coexist unless consumer perception, branding behavior, and industry norms create a reasonable link between them.

Trademark disputes in this space aren’t decided by matching words. They’re decided by relationships, perception, presentation of evidence, and marketplace realities.

If your restaurant name overlaps with an existing food or beverage brand—or you’re planning to expand into packaged goods—the attorneys at Jimerson Birr can help you assess risk, strengthen your trademark rights, and build a brand strategy that avoids costly conflicts. Contact us to get started.