- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Taco Bells Seeks U.S. Regulators to Dismiss Taco John’s Claim to the Trademark
Taco Bells Seeks U.S. Regulators to Dismiss Taco John’s Claim to the Trademark
The American chain of fast-food restaurants, Taco Bell has sought to defend its trademark by asking the U.S. Regulators to force Wyoming-based Taco John’s to abandon its longstanding claim to the trademark over “Taco Tuesday.”
California-based fast food giant Taco Bell has filed a new petition before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trial and Appeal Board, asks U.S. regulators to do away with a trademark registration on the food-centric phrase.
Taco Bell said it is not seeking damages or trademark rights of its own, stating it “simply seeks common sense for usage of a common term.”
The fast-food chain stated in the filing that its entities “must be able to promote their goods and services using the generic, informational term ‘Taco Tuesday’ to compete effectively in the marketplace.”
Taco John’s holds the trademark in the entire United States except for New Jersey. Taco Bell has also filed a similar petition against Gregory’s Restaurant and Bar in Somers Point, New Jersey, which holds the trademark rights in New Jersey and has also used the term “Taco Tuesday” for over 40 years.
Previously, the Patent and Trademark Office had approved the Taco John’s “Taco Tuesday” trademark in 1989.
Taco John’s has sought to protect its trademark over the years. In 2019, the company sent a warning letter to a nearby brewery that promoted its taco truck with the same term.