## Facts

- Mother’s Restaurants (opposer) operated restaurants under the mark “Mother’s Pizza Parlour,” first opened in Ontario, Canada in 1970 and later expanded as a chain.
- Mother’s Other Kitchens, Inc. (applicant) sought U.S. registration of “Mother’s Other Kitchens” for restaurant services.
- The applicant filed its U.S. application in 1976.
- Before the applicant’s 1976 filing, the opposer (or its predecessor) had begun advertising “Mother’s Pizza Parlour” to U.S. consumers.
- The opposer opened a U.S. “Mother’s Pizza Parlour” restaurant in 1977.
- The opposer filed a notice of opposition before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), asserting priority and likelihood of confusion based on its “Mother’s Pizza Parlour” mark and related “Mother’s” branding for restaurant services.

## Issues

1. Whether the opposer established priority in the United States, where the mark originated in Canada, based on U.S.-directed advertising and subsequent U.S. restaurant operations.
2. Whether use of “Mother’s Other Kitchens” for restaurant services was likely to cause confusion with “Mother’s Pizza Parlour” (and the shared “Mother’s” formative) used for restaurant services.

## Decision

- The TTAB sustained the opposition.
- The TTAB found that the opposer had prior rights in the United States sufficient to defeat the 1976 application.
- The TTAB found a likelihood of confusion between the parties’ marks for restaurant services.
- Registration of “Mother’s Other Kitchens” for restaurant services was refused.

## Legal Principles

- Trademark rights are territorial; foreign use alone does not automatically establish priority in the United States.
- Priority in the United States may be supported where a foreign-origin mark is promoted to U.S. consumers through meaningful U.S.-directed advertising or related commercial activity, particularly when followed by U.S. market entry.
- In a TTAB opposition, an applicant’s registration may be barred if the opposer proves prior rights in a confusingly similar mark and likelihood of confusion, considering mark similarity and the relatedness/overlap of services.

## Conclusion

The TTAB denied registration because the opposer’s “Mother’s” restaurant branding had established U.S. priority through U.S.-directed promotion and subsequent U.S. operations, and the applicant’s “Mother’s Other Kitchens” mark for identical services created a likelihood of consumer confusion.


Mother's Rests. v. Mother's Other Kitchens, Inc., 218 U.S.P.Q. 1046 (T.T.A.B. 1983)