Fowles Wine Pty Ltd.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 15, 2017

No. 79157017 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2017)

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: September 15, 2017

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Fowles Wine Pty Ltd.
_____

Serial No. 79157017
_____

J. Scott Gerien of Dickenson Peatman & Fogarty,
for Fowles Wine Pty Ltd.
Yatsye I. Lee, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 107,
J. Leslie Bishop, Managing Attorney.1
_____

Before Cataldo, Wellington and Lynch,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Cataldo, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Fowles Wine Pty Ltd. (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register of
FARM TO TABLE (in standard characters) as a mark for “wines” in International
Class 33.2

1 The involved application originally was examined by a different Examining Attorney.
2 Application Serial No. 79157017, with an effective filing date of September 26, 2014, seeks
an extension of protection under Section 66(a) of the Trademark Act of International
Registration No. 1227808, issued on September 26, 2014.
Serial No. 79157017
- 2 -

The Trademark Examining Attorney has refused registration of Applicant’s
proposed mark under Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1) because FARM TO
TABLE is merely descriptive of a feature or characteristic of the identified goods, and
Sections 1, 2, and 45 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051-1052, 1127, on the
ground that FARM TO TABLE does not function as a trademark to indicate the
source of Applicant’s goods.3
When the refusals were made final, Applicant appealed and requested
reconsideration. After the Examining Attorney denied the request for
reconsideration, the appeal was resumed. We affirm the refusals to register.
I. Examining Attorney’s Evidence and Applicant’s Evidence.
In maintaining the refusals to register, the Examining Attorney submitted, inter
alia, printouts from commercial internet web pages discussing the term “farm to
table” in connection with wines, wine pairing, and wine and food events. The following
examples are illustrative (emphasis added by the Examining Attorney):
Chaminade: “Farm to Table Wine Dinners… Local Wine and the Finest Food
Local Growers Have to Offer…Each meal consists of a set menu of five courses,
with ingredients from local farms and paired with local wines…” January 20,
2015 Office Action, TSDR pp. 5-6;

Experience Finger Lakes: “Farm-to-Table Wine and Cooking Adventure…Chef
Samantha will prepare and demonstrate the creation of a three-course lunch

3 In her brief, the Examining Attorney indicated that she “is withdrawing the alternative
argument that the mark is deceptively misdescriptive of the identified goods.” 6 TTABVUE
4. Accordingly, those arguments will be given no consideration except to the extent that they
are relevant to the remaining refusals of registration.
Page references herein to the application record refer to the .pdf version of the USPTO’s
Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) system. References to the briefs refer to
the Board’s TTABVUE docket system.

Serial No. 79157017
- 3 -

featuring the farm’s ingredients and wines made at local Silver Thread
Vineyards.” February 20, 2015 Office Action, TSDR pp. 16-17;

Northern Vineyards Winery: “Wine Making Process…The wine making
process begins in late August or early September at our winery. The grapes are
harvested and transported to the winery…The complete process from farm to
table is accomplished in our local area. The wine making process is done on
location at Northern Vineyards Winery.” June 24, 2015 Office Action, TSDR p.
5;

Thirst Wine Merchants Fort Greene: “Farm-to-Table Wines…Most of the wines
we sell are made by farmer-winemakers, by people who both tend their vines
and make their wines.” Id. at 12;

Liquid Assets: “Absolutely, the tendency to move in the direction of farm-to-
table applies really well when it comes to wine sourcing.” Id. at 15;

Details: Willamette Valley, Ore. “Refined farm-to-table cuisine featuring local
meats and produce – and, of course, local wines…” Id. at 24;

A quick rundown of what’s happening at New Jersey restaurants: “…Genesis
Farm will host a farm-to table dinner on Sept. 29, featuring eight locavore
chefs…plus local organic wine.” Id. at 26;

Bainbridge Vineyards: “EDUCULTURE FARM TO TABLE DINNER…This
weekend at Bainbridge Vineyards, we invite you to join local non-profit
EduCulture for an authentic farm to table experience in the fields where your
food and wine is grown”…“Each course will be paired with slow wine, locally
grown and produced by Bainbridge Vineyards.” March 1, 2016 Office Action,
TSDR pp. 2-3;

The Chamber – The Columbia Montour Chamber of Commerce: “Freas Farm
offers PA preferred farm to table wines and Port. They use Minnesota hybrid
grapes grown in Sullivan County…” Id. at 8;

Freas Farm Winery: “Freas Farm Winery is focused on serving high quality
farm to table wines.” August 19, 2016 Office Action, TSDR p. 39;

FEAST: “Stone Hill to Host Its First Farm-to-Table Dinner August 14…In the
winemaking process we’re using our grapes from our vineyards in the Herman
area.” March 1, 2016 Office Action, TSDR pp. 9-10;

Genovese Italian Restaurant: “Farm to Table Wine Tasting featuring local
farmers & organic wines from Bonterra Vineyards…” Id. at 12;
Serial No. 79157017
- 4 -

Napa Valley Vintners: “Leading the Culinary Team – Between the dinner
parties and the Friday Barrel Auction & Marketplace, scores of the region’s
chefs will be at the table for attendees, celebrating the farm-to-table wines of
Napa Valley.” Id. at 21;

Springbank Farm: “This balanced, not too sweet, farm-to-table wine is made
with 1 ½ pounds per bottle of SpringBank Farm’s transitional blueberries
grown locally along the South Santiam River.” Id. at 26;

Pippin Hill Farm: FARM-TO-TABLE WINE & FOOD... “We welcome guests to
enjoy our estate wines while savoring Virginia’s most exciting cuisine…Chef
Scatena highlights the freshest ingredients from local farms, including our own
Kitchen Garden, with seasonal menus that showcase our wines.” Id. at 38;

Bay Ridge Wine & Spirits: “W.O.M. Family-Owned, Farm-to-Table California
Zinfandel. “Family owned, hand harvested, native yeast fermentation. They are
a brilliant example of farm to table wines in affordable price points.” Id. at 47;

Missouri Wines: 3rd Annual Fall Farm-to-Table Wine Dinner. “Celebrate the
harvest with a delicious gourmet meal in our newly-expanded barrel room
paired with our own Jowler Creek wines…” August 19, 2016 Office Action,
TSDR p. 25;

Quivira Vineyards: “Quivira Vineyards’ 2016 Farm-to-Table Dinner
Series…Imagine a meal where the entire menu, including the wine, has been
grown mere feet from where you will be dining…our partnering restaurants
will be preparing distinct menus featuring produce and wines where everything
has been grown and nurtured on our estate…” Id. at 32;

Five Points Berries Winery: “Exquisite Farm-to-Table Wines. Get a refreshing
taste of local wines from Five Points Berries, a small family orchard and winery
in Mauk, GA that has been producing a variety of rich-tasting blueberry wines
since 2007.” Id. at 42;

Tom Gore Wines – Farm to Table in Hyannis. “A family farmer who supplied
big wineries, saves his best grapes for his own! Farm to Table wines, good
enough to put his own name on them!” Id. at 46;

WYOMING FIRST: Table Mountain Vineyards: …“All the wines are ‘Farm to
Table Wines’ meaning the fruit is sourced from local vineyards and fruit
growers in Wyoming.” Id. at 47;

Serial No. 79157017
- 5 -

January 20, 2015 Office Action, TSDR 8;

June 24, 2015 Office Action, TSDR 8;

Id. at 15.
Serial No. 79157017
- 6 -

In addition, the Examining Attorney introduced into the record copies of articles
from major newspapers discussing the term “farm to table” in connection with wines.4
The following examples are illustrative:

Id. at 18;

4 June 24, 2015 Office Action, TSDR p. 18-30. The newspapers include the Star Tribune
(Minneapolis, MN), Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, Star-Ledger (Newark, NJ),
Boston Globe, Chicago Sun-Times, Hartford Courant (CN); Atlanta Journal-Constitution,
The Oregonian (Portland, OR),
Serial No. 79157017
- 7 -

Id. at 22;

Id. at 23.
Serial No. 79157017
- 8 -

In support of its arguments in favor of registration, Applicant submitted, inter
alia, the following screenshot from its internet web page:

Applicant’s November 5, 2015 Response to Office Action, TSDR p. 15.

Serial No. 79157017
- 9 -

In addition, Applicant made of record during prosecution copies of third-party
registrations for “FARM TO TABLE” formative marks for a variety of food products
and related services, not including wine, and a table listing the registrations, the
marks, and the identified goods and services:

Applicant’s July 20, 2016 Response to Office Action, TSDR p. 10-15, 32-3;
Serial No. 79157017
- 10 -

Id. at 17-29, 33-4. We note that Reg. Nos. 3721582 and 3843015 are cancelled. We
further note that of the above registrations, Reg. Nos. 4622743, 4714280, 4127100,
Serial No. 79157017
- 11 -

4762064 are issued on the Supplemental Register. More importantly, we note that
the TSDR printouts introduced by Applicant, and upon which the above table is
based, have very little probative value because the “Mark Information” field is not
expanded to indicate whether any of the registrations issued on the Principal Register
are subject to a claim of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) or whether any
wording in the marks has been disclaimed. In addition, the TSDR printouts do not
list the recited goods or services. However, inasmuch as the Examining Attorney has
not objected to the above table created by Applicant, we will consider it as evidence
herein for what it shows on its face.
Applicant also made of record TSDR copies of third-party Reg. No. 4638155 for the
mark VINE TO TABLE (standard characters) for “wine” Applicant’s May 21, 2015
Response to Office Action, TSDR p. 61; and Reg. No. 3885895 for the mark FARMER’S
TABLE (standard characters) for “wines.” Id. at 63.
II. Failure to Function as a Mark Under Sections 1, 2, & 45
We turn to the substantive refusal, under Sections 1, 2, and 45 of the Lanham Act,
on the ground that the applied-for mark does not serve to identify and distinguish
Applicant’s goods. As has been frequently stated, “[b]efore there can be registration,
there must be a trademark.” In re Bose Corp., 546 F.2d 893, 192 USPQ 213, 215
(CCPA 1976). See also In re Int’l Spike, Inc., 196 USPQ 447, 449 (TTAB 1977)
(Trademark Act is for the registration, not the creation, of trademarks).
Sections 1, 2, and 45 of the Trademark Act provide the statutory basis for refusal
to register subject matter that fails to function as a trademark. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051,
Serial No. 79157017
- 12 -

1052, and 1127. Specifically, Sections 1 and 2 provide, inter alia, for the application
and registration on the Principal Register of trademarks “by which the goods of the
applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others” and Section 45 defines a
“trademark,” in pertinent part, as “any word, name, symbol, or device, or any
combination thereof used by a person ... to identify and distinguish his or her goods
... from those manufactured or sold by others and to indicate the source of the goods,
even if that source is unknown.” Accordingly, the Office is statutorily constrained to
register matter on the Principal Register only if it functions as a mark.
“[N]ot every designation adopted with the intention that it performs a trademark
function and even labeled as a trademark necessarily accomplishes that purpose….”
Am. Velcro, Inc. v. Charles Mayer Studios, Inc., 177 USPQ 149, 154 (TTAB 1973). See
also Roux Labs., Inc. v. Clairol, Inc., 427 F.2d 823, 166 USPQ 34, 39 (CCPA 1970).
The critical inquiry in determining whether a designation functions as
a mark is how the designation would be perceived by the relevant public.
To make this determination we look to the specimens and other evidence
of record showing how the designation is actually used in the
marketplace.

In re Eagle Crest Inc., 96 USPQ2d 1227, 1229 (TTAB 2010) (citations omitted).
Thus, the central question in determining whether Applicant’s proposed mark
functions as a trademark is the commercial impression it makes on the relevant
public (e.g., whether the term sought to be registered would be perceived as a mark
identifying the source of the goods). In re Aerospace Optico, Inc., 78 USPQ2d 1861,
1862 (TTAB 2006) (“the mark must be used in such a manner that it would be readily
perceived as identifying the specified goods. A critical element in determining
Serial No. 79157017
- 13 -

whether matter sought to be registered as a trademark is the impression the matter
makes on the relevant public.” (citations omitted)). See also In re Keep A Breast
Foundation, ___ USPQ2d ___ (TTAB 2017); In re Volvo Cars of North Am. Inc., 46
USPQ2d 1455, 1459 (TTAB 1998); In re Remington Prods. Inc., 3 USPQ2d 1714, 1715
(TTAB 1987); In re Morganroth, 208 USPQ 284, 287 (TTAB 1980).
Based on our review of all the evidence of record, we agree with the Examining
Attorney that Applicant’s proposed mark fails to function as a trademark.
The evidence of record clearly indicates that FARM TO TABLE is utilized as a
statement or slogan by numerous third parties to indicate that their foods and wines
are grown and produced locally as part of a growing trend toward local food and wine
sourcing and production. In fact, the evidence excerpted above shows that FARM TO
TABLE is commonly used in an informational manner in connection with local
produce, meats, wines and events featuring these products that are prepared and
served together. It is settled that the function of a trademark is to identify a single
commercial source. See. e.g., In re Eagle Crest Inc., 96 USPQ2d at 1230. Because
consumers appear to be accustomed to seeing the phrase FARM TO TABLE displayed
on or in connection with food and wines from many different sources, they would not
view the slogan as a trademark indicating food or wine originating only in one source,
be it Applicant or a third party. See D.C. One Wholesaler, Inc. v. Chien, 120 USPQ2d
1710, 1716 (TTAB 2016) (failure to function where “the marketplace is awash in
products that display the term”). It is clear that food and wine, along with food and
wine events, advertised with this slogan will be purchased and attended by
Serial No. 79157017
- 14 -

consumers for the message conveyed by FARM TO TABLE, namely, that the foods
and wines are locally grown, sourced, produced or prepared. Applicant thus is not
entitled to appropriate the statement or slogan to itself and thereby attempt to
prevent competitors from using it to promote the sale of their own food products,
wines and culinary events. Id.; see also In re AOP LLC, 107 USPQ2d 1644, 1655
(TTAB 2013) (finding AOP merely informational and not source-identifying for wine
as it informs consumers of a certification process).
Further, the manner of use on Applicant’s website, excerpted above, would not
obviate the perception of FARM TO TABLE as merely an informational statement.
The screenshot, displaying FOOD WINES – FARM TO TABLE in large letters above
the wording “Farm to Table wines are bright, delicious, and made to match with fresh
produce shared among good friends” (Applicant’s November 5, 2015 Response to
Office Action, TSDR 15) conveys that the wines displayed below and identified by
their varietal names, are part of the trend toward locally sourced foods and wines
rather than an indicator of source. In view thereof, and given the consumer
familiarity with this pervasive expression, FARM TO TABLE as used on Applicant’s
wine bottles pictured on its web page, also would be perceived by consumers as
informational matter along with the wines’ varietal names.5 The statement or slogan
functions solely to convey an informational message regarding Applicant’s wines,
rather than identifying the source thereof. See. e.g., In re Boston Beer Co. L.P., 198

5 We observe that “Fowles Wine” as it appears on Applicant’s wine bottles is far more likely
to be perceived by consumers as a source indicator than FARM TO TABLE.
Serial No. 79157017
- 15 -

F.3d 1370, 53 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (THE BEST BEER IN AMERICA so
highly laudatory and descriptive as applied to beer and ale that it is unregistrable);
In re Aerospace Optics, Inc., 78 USPQ2d 1861 (TTAB 2006) (SPECTRUM fails to
function as a mark for illuminated pushbutton switches, as it merely informs
purchasers of the multiple color feature of the goods); In re Tilcon Warren, Inc., 221
USPQ 86 (TTAB 1984) (WATCH THAT CHILD for construction material would be
perceived merely as an expression of general concern about child safety rather than
as a mark); In re Schwauss, 217 USPQ 361 (TTAB 1983) (FRAGILE for labels and
bumper stickers is an informational statement rather than a source identifier).
Regardless of the display, “[b]ecause the nature of the phrase will be perceived as
informational, and also because the ubiquity of the phrase, … it does not create the
commercial impression of a source indicator.” See D.C. One Wholesaler, 120 USPQ2d
at 1716.
Applicant’s arguments directed toward the failure to function refusal are as follows:
In this way, the wine is not “farm to table” (as wine cannot be), but
rather the wine is crafted to pair with meats which may be considered
to be “farm to table,” and in this way the mark is suggestive of a purpose
of the wine, but not descriptive of wine. The phrase “farm-to-table” is an
ambiguous moniker that cannot provide real information about the
functions, features or characteristics of specific wine products. The
phrase “farm-to-table” is ambiguous as to the characteristics of
Applicant's wine as to whether the wine is harvested, stored, sold, and
consumed locally or whether the wine was harvested in a remote
location, stored in yet another location, shipped overseas and then sold
and consumed, or some combination of these. In the context of the
information sought by relevant consumers of wine, the phrase “farm-to-
table” has no meaning. In fact, FARM TO TABLE is not used by
Applicant as a synonym or substitute for the phrase “locally sourced,”
and the modern interpretation of the three-word phrase “farm-to-table”
in the field of alcoholic beverages, i.e., wine, is susceptible to different
Serial No. 79157017
- 16 -

interpretations such that it cannot be deemed to merely describe
Applicant’s goods. The mark FARM TO TABLE is neither laudatory nor
ordinarily used in the marketplace, business or in a particular trade or
industry for wine (although it is for certain types of food). Applicant’s
mark FARM TO TABLE indeed functions as a trademark.6

However, the examining attorney has shown that FARM TO TABLE would be
perceived solely as informational matter rather than as a trademark and none of the
evidence submitted by Applicant shows otherwise. The Examining Attorney’s
evidence unambiguously shows that third parties utilize the informational statement
or slogan FARM TO TABLE to identify foods and wines that are locally grown,
harvested, stored and sold rather than to indicate the source thereof. Applicant’s
contention that it does not intend FARM TO TABLE to convey such information
regarding its own wines is insufficient to overcome the Examining Attorney’s showing
that FARM TO TABLE is pervasive in the wine industry to denote such wines as well
as foods and culinary events featuring them.
Upon consideration of the entire record, we agree with the Examining Attorney
that the phrase FARM TO TABLE is an informational statement or slogan used in
the food and wine industries to denote locally sourced products and related dining
services. As such, the evidence shows that FARM TO TABLE will be perceived as
informational matter rather than as a mark designating the source of the goods.
III. Mere Descriptiveness - Applicable Law
Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act prohibits registration on the Principal
Register of “a mark which, (1) when used on or in connection with the goods of the

6 4 TTABVUE 19.
Serial No. 79157017
- 17 -

applicant is merely descriptive . . . of them.” 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1). A term is “merely
descriptive” within the meaning of Section 2(e)(1) if it “immediately conveys
knowledge of a quality, feature, function, or characteristic of the goods or services
with which it is used.” In re Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297,
102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Bayer AG, 488 F.3d 960,
82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). “On the other hand, if one must exercise
mature thought or follow a multi-stage reasoning process in order to determine what
product or service characteristics the term indicates, the term is suggestive rather
than merely descriptive.” In re Tennis in the Round, Inc., 199 USPQ 496, 498 (TTAB
1978); see also, In re Shutts, 217 USPQ 363, 364-65 (TTAB 1983); In re Universal
Water Systems, Inc., 209 USPQ 165, 166 (TTAB 1980).
Whether a mark is merely descriptive is determined in relation to the goods for
which registration is sought, not in the abstract or on the basis of guesswork.
Descriptiveness of a term must be evaluated “in relation to the particular goods for
which registration is sought, the context in which it is being used, and the possible
significance that the term would have to the average purchaser of the goods because
of the manner of its use or intended use.” In re Chamber of Commerce of the U.S.,
102 USPQ2d at 1219 (quoting In re Bayer AG, 82 USPQ2d at 1831). “The question is
not whether someone presented with only the mark could guess what the goods or
services are. Rather, the question is whether someone who knows what the goods and
services are will understand the mark to convey information about them.” DuoProSS
Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757
Serial No. 79157017
- 18 -

(Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Tower Tech Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1316-17 (TTAB
2002)). A term need only describe a single feature or attribute of the goods to be
descriptive. In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 57 USPQ2d 1807,
1812 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
As discussed above, the Examining Attorney introduced evidence that the phrase
FARM TO TABLE has a recognized meaning in the field of locally sourced foods and
wines, as well as culinary services related thereto. As a result, “we simply need not
dwell on considering the individual meanings of the words” comprising the mark. In
re Shiva Corp., 48 USPQ2d 1957, 1958 (TTAB 1998). See also Remington Products v.
North American Philips, 892 F.2d 1576, 13 USPQ2d 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1990). We turn
then to our determination whether FARM TO TABLE merely describes a feature or
characteristic of Applicant’s “wines.”
Based upon the evidence excerpted above, we find that, when applied to “wines,”
the mark in its entirety means and directly describes wines that are locally sourced.
In particular, there is significant third-party usage of FARM TO TABLE describing
not only foods sourced from local farms but also wines sourced from local vineyards.
The following examples are especially probative:
Freas Farm Winery: “Freas Farm Winery is focused on serving high quality
farm to table wines.” August 19, 2016 Office Action, TSDR p. 39;

Napa Valley Vintners: “Leading the Culinary Team – Between the dinner
parties and the Friday Barrel Auction & Marketplace, scores of the region’s
chefs will be at the table for attendees, celebrating the farm-to-table wines of
Napa Valley.” March 1, 2016 Office Action, TSDR p. 21; and

Serial No. 79157017
- 19 -

Springbank Farm: “This balanced, not too sweet, farm-to-table wine is made
with 1 ½ pounds per bottle of SpringBank Farm’s transitional blueberries
grown locally along the South Santiam River.” Id. at 26.

Descriptiveness is further demonstrated by the evidence of use of the phrase
FARM TO TABLE in major newspapers to describe locally sourced meats, produce,
and wines. June 24, 2015 Office Action, TSDR p. 18-30.
Applicant argues that
First, Applicant’s mark FARM TO TABLE is arbitrary or suggestive, not
descriptive nor misdescriptive. Second, a reasonable consumer would
not likely believe that wine products come from a farm to a table. The
mark FARM TO TABLE for wine is not descriptive nor misdescriptive
and under no thought process or analysis would a reasonable consumer
be materially affected by the mark FARM TO TABLE believing that the
wine came from a “farm to their table” affecting their decision to
purchase the goods.
A consumer would only expect fresh, non-processed fruit or vegetables
to come directly from a farm to the table to where they are served. All
wine consumers know that wine is never “fresh.” By its very definition,
wine can only be wine once the grape juice used to make it is processed
and then aged for several months or years. Thus, it is an absurdity to
argue that wine consumers would believe that wine was “fresh from a
farm” to be consumed at their table. Furthermore, the purchaser will be
present at the purchase —and will be aware of the surroundings; given
it will be licensed premises that are not a vineyard (as other producers
will not be selling Applicant's wine, they will sell their own), and
therefore they will actually know that the wine is not coming
immediately from “a farm.” 4 TTABVUE 18.

First, the Examining Attorney’s evidence belies Applicant’s contention that FARM
TO TABLE is arbitrary or suggestive. Rather, the evidence shows that FARM TO
TABLE directly describes a feature of characteristic of “wines,” namely that they are
locally sourced. Second, the evidence demonstrates that while FARM TO TABLE may
have its origins in describing foods from local farms, the phrase is applicable to wines
made with grapes from local vineyards. Indeed, some of the evidence specifically
Serial No. 79157017
- 20 -

describes wines originating from grapes grown at vineyards and wineries located in
the same areas as FARM TO TABLE wines and demonstrates that third parties use
FARM TO TABLE to describe such wines. The following example is illustrative:
Northern Vineyards Winery: “Wine Making Process…The wine making
process begins in late August or early September at our winery. The grapes are
harvested and transported to the winery…The complete process from farm to
table is accomplished in our local area. The wine making process is done on
location at Northern Vineyards Winery.” June 24, 2015 Office Action, TSDR p.
5.

Third, Applicant’s argument that FARM TO TABLE cannot describe wine because
“fresh” wines available literally from farm to table would be unaged and undrinkable
grape juice misapprehends the meaning of FARM TO TABLE as applied to wines.
The evidence shows that FARM TO TABLE wines are not necessarily freshly pressed
and unaged, but rather made from grapes grown in the same area as the wineries at
which they are pressed and aged, and often are suitable to be paired with local foods.
Thus, the phrase FARM TO TABLE merely describes locally sourced wines that are
suitable for consumption with locally sourced foods. Nor do we find that FARM TO
TABLE creates any incongruity as applied to wines because there is no evidence that
the wine industry uses the phrase to describe the age of the wines, but rather the
locally produced nature thereof. In other words, Applicant’s mark lacks the type of
suggestiveness or incongruous meaning that might avoid mere descriptiveness. See
generally In re Colonial Stores Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 157 USPQ 382 (CCPA 1968)
(“unusual association or arrangement in the applicant’s mark [SUGAR & SPICE]
results in a unique and catchy expression which does not, without some analysis and
rearrangement of its components suggest the contents of applicant’s goods”).
Serial No. 79157017
- 21 -

Finally, Applicant’s evidence of third party registration of FARM TO TABLE-
formative marks for food products and services not including wines and third-party
registrations for VINE TO TABLE and FARMER’S TABLE for “wines” does not
compel a different result. “It has been said many times that each case must be decided
on its own facts.” In re Eagle Crest Inc., 96 USPQ2d at 1229 (internal citation
omitted). None of the third-party registrations for FARM TO TABLE marks identify
wines among their goods or services, and the two third-party registrations for “wines”
do not feature the mark FARM TO TABLE, but different marks with different
meanings. In addition, we simply are not bound by the prior actions of examining
attorneys involving different marks, different goods or services and different
evidentiary records. See In re Davey Products Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1206 (TTAB
2009); In re Ginc UK Ltd., 90 USPQ2d 1472, 1480 (TTAB 2007); In re Outdoor
Recreation Group, 81 USPQ2d 1392, 1399 (TTAB 2006). Regardless, as noted above,
the evidence is incomplete and lacks information we would consider essential in
comparing the third-party registrations to Applicant’s application.
IV. Conclusion
We have carefully considered all arguments and evidence of record, including any
not specifically discussed. We find that FARM TO TABLE fails to function as a mark
under Sections 1, 2, and 45 of the Trademark Act and, in the alternative, is merely
descriptive of the wines identified in Applicant’s application under Section 2(e)(1) of
the Trademark Act.
Serial No. 79157017
- 22 -

Decision: The refusals to register Applicant’s mark FARM TO TABLE are
affirmed.