Infringement: No Secondary Meaning Outside of Los Angeles, Unregistered Mark, Geographic Breadth Between Two Marks, Different Theme and Style of Restaurants, & No Bad Faith Intent.

Dan Tana v. Dantanna’s., 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 14514 (11th Cir.), (C.A. 11, Jul. 15, 2010) Case No. 09-15123




Los Angeles restaurant Dan Tana sued Atlanta restaurant Dantanna’s for trademark infringement. The district court ruled in favor of Dantanna’s and the Appeal court affirmed. The Appeals court found there was material fact at issue on likelihood of confusion. Although the two businesses were similar, as they were both upscale restaurants, Dan Tana in did not register for a federal trademark and could not prove secondary meaning outside of Los Angeles. The court also considered that the two restaurants were on opposite sides of the country and were different themed restaurants. Dan Tana was a cozy Italian restaurant, whereas Dantanna’s was sports themed, with a surf and turf menu. In also, there was no bad faith intent to infringe or profit off of the confusion because Dantanna’s was named for the owner’s two children Dan and Anna.