Source: https://www.tmlawworldwide.com/2011/08/09/a-tale-of-two-huts-in-clifton-by-ryan-mcgonigle/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 13:08:22+00:00

Document:
Somewhere near the banks of the oft-overflowing Passaic River in Clifton, New Jersey, there exists a roadside greasy spoon known for its fried “ripper” hot dogs known as Rutt’s Hut (hereinafter, “Rutt’s”). Rutt’s has been around since 1928 and has been featured in The New York Times, numerous television shows and was listed in the book 1,000 Places to See in the USA and Canada Before You Die. That being said, the author grew up less than ten miles from Rutt’s and has never been there. Nonetheless, it clearly has a following and can relish in its status a veritable New Jersey icon.
Rutt’s, the holder of an incontestable trademark registration for its restaurant services, demurred to Mutt’s use of its trademark, sending a cease and desist letter to advise that Mutt’s was barking up the wrong tree. In order to be effective, a cease and desist letter has to have teeth—e.g., the threat of litigation to show the recipient of the letter that the subject matter of the letter is not a trifling matter. In other words, the sender has to show the recipient that its bite is indeed worse than its bark.
Last week, Rutt’s did just that by filing a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey entitled, Rutt’s Hut, Inc. v. Mutt’s Hut International, Adam’s Bagel & Deli, Magdi Muhammad and Ed Madsen, No. 2:11-01350 (D.N.J. filed March 9, 2011)(hereinafter, “the Action”). The Action, which sounds in federal trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1051 et seq. and corresponding state statutory and common law claims, seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, damages under 15 U.S.C. §1117(a) and attorneys’ fees, amongst other things.
OUT OF THE FRYING PAN AND INTO…INJUNCTIVE RELIEF?
Phonetically, the marks are similar but not identical. Courts have held that one-letter phonetically-different marks can be confusingly similar to one another. However, an evaluation of Lapp factor No. 1 will also include “the manner in which the marks are used.” In the Action here, both marks are used in connection with restaurant services and—more specifically—to sell hot dogs. Further still, both are conveniently within the City of Clifton. The plaintiff also alleges actual confusion, which shouldn’t be surprising given the proximity of the two restaurants.
SHOULD MUTT’S HUT ROLL OVER AND PLAY DEAD?
As such, there is a danger to plaintiff that its claims will not pass mustard [sic]. Nevertheless, the less than five (5) miles separating the plaintiff and defendants—all within the same town—should factor prominently in the Court’s decision. Thus, the RALLO versus GALLO and “SLIDE” versus “GLIDE” examples above will not likely benefit Mutt’s here because of the proximity of the services (both in terms of distance and sort of services rendered under the marks) in connection with identical products served—hot dogs.
No matter how the Court decides this one, niche market and hometown heroes such as Rutt’s should take that as a signal to look to expand upon their fame (newly-found or otherwise) and seek private label agreements for products complementary to the services rendered. It is not unheard of for restaurants to sell eponymously-labeled sauces, processed meats or entrees. Seeking trademark registrations for such products outside of International Class 042 or 043 (encompassing restaurant services) will only serve to strengthen one’s brand and if your client has a laundry list of trademarks to cite, it might scare off local imposters at the cease and desist stage.
 See, Rutt’s Hut, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutt’s_Hut (visited Mar. 17, 2011).
 See, Clifton, New Jersey, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifton,_New_Jersey (visited Mar. 17, 2011).
 See, e.g., Clifton hot dog giant sues competitor for trademark infringement, http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/03/clifton_hot_dog_giant_rutts_hu.html#cmpid=v2mode_be_smoref_face (visited Mar. 17, 2011).
 See, Hugh R. Morley, Rutt’s Hut in legal dogfight over name, http://www.northjersey.com/news/business/118148464_Dogfight_cooking_in_Clifton.html (visited Mar. 17, 2011).
 See Rutt’s Hut, Inc. v. Mutt’s Hut International et al., No. 2:11-01350 (D.N.J. filed March 9, 2011), Complaint, (Doc. 1) at 1, 11-12.
 See Dranoff-Perlstein Assocs. v. Sklar, 967 F.2d 852, 862 (3d Cir. 1992)(quotation omitted); see also, A&H Sportswear, Inc. v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, Inc., 237 F.3d 198, 211 (3d Cir. 2000).
 See 721 F.2d 460, 463 (3d Cir. 1983)(citing Scott Paper Co. v. Scott’s Liquid Gold, Inc., 589 F.2d 1225, 1229 (3d Cir. 1978)).
 See A&H Sportswear, 237 F.3d at 211 (quoting Lapp, 721 F.2d at 463). Court approach the application of the Lapp factors qualitatively. Because of that, “[n]ot all factors will be relevant in all cases; further, the different factors may properly be accorded different weights depending on the particular factual setting. A district court should utilize the factors that seem appropriate to a given situation.” Id. at 215.
 See Checkpoint Sys. v. Check Point Software Tech., Inc., 269 F.3d 270, 281 (3d Cir. 2001).
 See A&H Sportswear, 237 F.3d at 216 (citing Ceiba-Geigy Corp. v. Bolar Pharm. Co., Inc., 747 F.2d 844, 851 (3d Cir. 1984)).
 See Kos Pharms., Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700, 713 (3d Cir. 2004)(quoting A&H Sportswear, 237 F.3d at 216)(emphasis in original)).
 See Krim-Ko Corp. v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 390 F.2d 728 (C.C.P.A. 1968)(holding that BEEP and VEEP are confusingly similar); see also, Nikon, Inc. v. Ikon Corp., 803 F.Supp. 910 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)(holding that NIKON and IKON were confusingly similar); see also, Bell Publishing Corp. v. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc., 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5066 (E.D. Pa. 1990)(holding that BELL and DELL were confusingly similar).
 See W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson, 882 F.Supp. 1454, 1458 (D.Del. 1995)(quotation omitted).
 See J. Thomas McCarthy, MCCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION at §23:25 (4th ed., West 2010).
 See 430 F.Supp.2d 1064, 1094 (E.D.Ca. 2005).
 See W.L. Gore, 882 F.Supp. at 1458.

References: v. 
 §1051
 §1117
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §23