Mommy’s trademark infringement

Mommy's Time Out wine by Ron Coleman
Mommy’s Time Out wine, a photo by Ron Coleman on Flickr.

I couldn’t but snap the above shot of “Mommy’s Time Out” wine when I first saw it three years ago in the local wine store. And after all the vino I’ve downed in the last 48 hours — well, we had to wait for it, but I guess Mommy will sue over no wine before its time — but eventually, she will sue:

California-based winery Clos Lachance Wines asked the court to declare that its “Mommyjuice” does not violate the trademark of “Mommy’s Time Out,” which is marketed by a New Jersey distributor.

“Mommy is a generic word that they don’t have a monopoly on,” said KC Branch, an attorney who represents Clos Lachance.

The owner of “Mommy’s Time Out” declined to comment on the lawsuit.

Insert punchline.  Or just refill your glass!

email

Ron Coleman

I write this blog.

3 thoughts on “Mommy’s trademark infringement

  1. How is MOMMY generic for wine? Never seen MOMMY wines on the shop shelf amongst MERLOTS and CHARDONNAYS … MOMMY isn’t even descriptive of wine. Guess sometimes it’s just better to decline … to comment.

  2. Any idea what the ruling on the declaratory judgment was? I couldn’t find it…

    If one company has a registered trademark (and first use in commerce) involving two generic words – for example, Cold Market – is it a trademark infringement for another company to use (and attempt to register) Hot Market (with a tagline of “your cold market is now hot”), when they both are going after the same consumers?

Comments are closed.