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!


  • 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.

  • 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?