|
The Cronut |
A few days ago even the Financial
Times (!) reported that - at last - the nearly mythological Cronut [what is that? Read further down] has made its way to London, with the first Cronut bakery [a Cronutery?] opening in Belgravia.
The Cronut is not
only a sought-after pastry for those with a sweet tooth, but also IP
aficionados.
US-based Katfriend
Matthew Hintz (Lowenstein Sandler), worldwide expert in the US Cronut trade
mark saga (also tweeting as @mhintzesq), explains it all.
Here's what
Matthew writes:
"Baked goods do not usually merit a
national conversation, but, for the past few years in the United States, a
croissant-doughnut hybrid known as the Cronut has done that. The
fascination continues with this laminated dough fried, and then sugared,
filled, and glazed. Lines for the Cronut at chef Dominique Ansel’s bakery
in New York City still start early, despite snow, rain, heat, or the discovery
of a nearby dead body.
|
Epcot at Walt Disney World took the descriptive approach with its Croissant Doughnut |
In honor of
the recent official debut of the Cronut at Ansel’s London bakery, we provide a
summary of the trademark registration path for that certain
croissant-doughnut. You can read this while waiting in line.
USPTO
registered, cancelled, and re-registered the CRONUT mark
The United
States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) first issued a registration for the
CRONUT mark in January 2014 to Ansel’s International Pastry Concepts LLC for,
among other items, “Bakery goods, namely, croissant and doughnut hybrid.”
In February 2014, however, the USPTO issued a notice that the registration was “inadvertently
issued” while the application was subject to an unexpired extension of time
to oppose registration of the mark. As a result, the USPTO cancelled the
registration and reinstated the application to pending status and potential
opposition.
That
opposition was soon filed in April 2014 by Najat Kaanache, a chef, and
Crystalline Management, LLC. Notably for a baked good dispute, Kaanache’s
attorneys were Baker & Hostetler LLP while Ansel’s
attorneys were The Cook Law Group (emphasis added).
Grounds in
Kaanache’s opposition were (1) likelihood of confusion with
Kaanache’s pending application to register the CRONUTS (plural, for “creative
donuts”) mark for “Baked goods, namely, sweet donuts and savory donuts,” (2)
mere descriptiveness of CRONUT, (3) lack of bona fide use in interstate
commerce for all of the goods listed in the application, (4) misuse of
registration symbol in enforcement efforts, and (5) fraud on the USPTO that the
CRONUT mark was not in use with all the goods on the application.
|
Rogue “Cronut” spotted
by Matthew Hintz himself
in
Chicago, Illinois
|
Ansel moved
the USPTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) to dismiss the opposition
based on the opposition not stating a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Kaanache’s dish, alleged in the motion
to dismiss, was crawfish “mini croquetas,” attempting to free ride on the
acclaim of Ansel’s bakery goods.
In its decision
on the motion, the Board expressed no opinion on its preferred flavor
profile; instead, the Board denied (most of) the opposition. The opinion
emphasized that a motion on this basis was a test solely of the pleading in the
opposition. In other words, Kaanache didn’t need not to she would
win—instead, she only needed to plead her claims sufficiently. According
to the Board, she did plead four of the five grounds sufficiently. As for the
other, in ground 2 (mere descriptiveness), the opposition only quoted a
descriptiveness rejection from examination. Since this was not her own
allegation, Ansel’s motion to dismiss ground 2 was granted, with leave for
Kaanache to re-plead.
And she did,
and after a series of extensions through the rest of 2014 and 2015, at the end
of June 2015, Kaanache withdrew the opposition. As a result, the Board
dismissed the opposition with prejudice. Subsequently, the USPTO again
issued a registration for the CRONUT mark to Ansel in August 2015. Some
puff pastries are just full of hot air.
|
“The Closest Thing
in LA. To the Cronut!”
|
The one
and only
While
resolution of the opposition was pending, in 2014, Dunkin’ Donuts released its
own croissant-doughnut hybrid called,
in decidedly descriptive terms, the Croissant Donut. Asked for a comment,
Ansel’s legal team responded that:
From our
understanding, Dunkin Donuts item is called a ‘croissant doughnut’. This is not
an infringement on our trademark for Cronut™. There is a difference between any
burger and the Big Mac; and any soda from Coke. And we appreciate large
corporations that respect trademarks from small businesses, and distinguish
their products appropriately to avoid customer confusion.
But using the
term “croissant donut” did not spare Rounds Bakery in Reno, Nevada, from
receiving a cease and desist letter from Ansel’s legal team. Rounds insisted it was careful not to use Ansel’s mark
in its marketing and made this clear at #NotACronut.
Other croissant-doughnut hybrids under various names also received cease
and desist letters from Ansel’s legal team: the Croi-nut in Baltimore, Maryland; the Crauxnut in South Portland, Maine; the Creaux-nut in Shreveport, Louisiana; the Kronut in Santa Monica, California; and the Croughnut in Seattle, Washington.
Reactions
were mixed. The Crauxnut was subsequently renamed as the CnD, for “cease
and desist,” but the bakery only makes them by special order now as
“[t]he ‘cronut’ fad saw it’s day, and demand waned.” The
Creaux-nut’s baker was “thrilled”
to learn that Ansel knew of her creation and changed the name. The
Croughnut became Double Happiness, after the bakery ran a contest on Facebook
for the renaming. (Candidates included Fauxssant, Croughbar, Pas Nom, and
Le Donut.) Other bakeries just went with whosywhatsit
or thingamajig.
What about
trademark protection in the United Kingdom?
The line
is very long and I am hungry
If you don’t
want to wait in line or have three days to spare, Ansel published the recipe for an At-Home Cronut in his cookbook.
But be careful how you refer to the finished baked good."
You've missed out the best imitation of all: the Greggsnut.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.greggs.co.uk/sweet-treats/caramel-and-pecan-greggsnut
For those who like a decidedly unpretentious croissant-doughnut hybrid!
On a slightly related baked good hybrid, I wonder how well Rich Products Ltd are enforcing their DUFFIN mark (UK Reg No 3010114).
ReplyDeleteA quick Google search suggests probably not all that well, unless they have an extremely large web of licence agreements(!)
Has anyone tried marketing a muffin-do(ugh)nut hybrid?
ReplyDeleteOut of curiosity: under what authority can the USPTO backpedal and rescind a decision? I can't think of any equivalent at the EPO or the EUIPO - what's decided is decided, e.g. the Virgin aircraft seat case.
ReplyDeleteIt is somewhat surprising that one opposes registration on the ground of "mere descriptiveness" whilst one is essentially coveting the same trade mark...
Incidentally, there is a German franchise of sandwich shops called "Le Crobag", which is a contraction of "CROissant" and "BAGuette", but they have nothing on the menu combining the features of both baked products.
Dunkin Doughnuts (Baskin Robbins) is respectful of IP?
ReplyDeleteHAHAHAHAHA
No really. Ha.
@Kant: you mean a "munut"? :-)
ReplyDeletePerhaps a Dofin? Much ado about nuffin
ReplyDelete