The Question at the Heart of the Cliff House Name Dispute

Over the course of three articles published in 2021 and this month (<a href="https://johnlumea.medium.com/the-five-hountalas-trademarks-for-the-cliff-house-san-francisco-97c7ff09617e" rel="noopener">here</a>, <a href="https://johnlumea.medium.com/does-the-bank-still-have-a-claim-on-the-hountalas-trademarks-for-the-cliff-house-san-francisco-e2fa7a3bc96" rel="noopener">here</a>, and <a href="https://johnlumea.medium.com/why-did-the-hountalas-organization-apply-for-a-new-cliff-house-trademark-in-may-2023-dd293e12df07" rel="noopener">here</a>), I have tried to show that Dan and Mary Hountalas do not own any trademark that entitles them to press such an absolute claim. Of the five Cliff House-related trademarks that the Hountalases own through their company PWIIP, LLC, and that are registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), four include the term “Cliff House” or “The Cliff House.” One of these four, “Cliff House Classic,” is for “packaged mixes for baked goods” and “bottled non-alcoholic cocktail mixes.” Two others are for the specific graphic logos, including the term “Cliff House,” that the Hountalases used for their restaurants and gift shop inside the The Cliff House—and for the food and beverage products. <a href="https://johnlumea.medium.com/the-question-at-the-heart-of-the-cliff-house-name-dispute-8d772bdc7b60">Click Here</a>