Fall River Miss Lizzie coffee shop wins in court against Lizzie Borden House

According to a Friday court filing, Miss Lizzie coffee shop in Fall River can keep its name.

United States District Judge Leo T. Sorokin denied a Motion for a Temporary Restraining order, or a Preliminary Injunction requested by US Ghost Adventures, LLC.

In the ruling, Sorokin stated that Ghost Adventures has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success for relief for several reasons.

“First, Miss Lizzie’s hatchet is not similar to Ghost Adventures’ mark. The hatchet used by Miss Lizzie is not at all the hatchet trademarked by Ghost Adventures. The former has a handle, and the axe blade features no notch; the latter is the image of a blade without a handle, but with a notch halfway along the bottom of the metal forming the blade.”

Sorokin went on to say that “Ghost Adventures has a service mark on “Lizzie Borden” for hotel and restaurant services. Ghost Adventures makes no claim to a particular design, and there is no particular similarity between the marks here. Rather, Ghost Adventures claims that Miss Lizzie’s cannot use a portion of its mark (the word “Lizzie”), at least in close physical proximity to Ghost Adventures’ location, and especially in combination with a hatchet (albeit, in the Court’s view, a decidedly different hatchet). Of course, as Ghost Adventures concedes, it does not own the Lizzie Borden story or history. Because Ghost Adventures has a composite trademark composed of two words, the Court “look[s] at ‘the total effect of the designation, rather than a comparison of the individual features.”

Sorokin also stated that there is limited evidence of customer confusion that Ghost Adventures points to.

Forth, while the goods sold by the parties both fall within the same class (i.e., hospitality services), Ghost Adventures registered the “Lizzie Borden” mark for hotel and restaurant services, and Ghost Adventures and Miss Lizzie’s are not direct competitors, according to Sorokin.

“Ghost Adventures sells tours and a bed-and-breakfast experience; Miss Lizzie’s operates a coffee shop. Different goods are sold to different classes of prospective purchasers—on one hand, sophisticated buyers who come from afar with tickets or reservations to experience the Lizzie Borden House; and the other, buyers seeking food or coffee.”

Lastly, Sorokin ruled that “given the different services, the parties unsurprisingly use different trade channels. They target consumers in varying ways, each with distinctive methods of advertising. All of these reasons lead the Court to find Ghost Adventures has not shown a strong likelihood of success. Ghost Adventures contends that it “does not claim a monopoly on the story of Lizzie Borden or its non-trademarked use; it merely seeks to protect the recognition and good will established in its registered trademark from confusingly similarly uses.” There is, however, no “confusingly similar use” here. Others can trade on the Lizzie Borden story—which has been renowned since the trial in 1893, an event that was termed at the time “The Trial of the Century”—provided these others do not use marks confusingly similar to Ghost Adventures’ incontestable marks.”

Miss Lizzie Coffee took to social media to express their happiness over the ruling.

“We at Miss Lizzie’s just want to thank you all so very much for all your support. A Federal judge has just found in our favor. We are free to keep our name! LIZZIE IS FREE! Once again! Special thanks to Attorney Daniel Larson and Attorney Matthew Ginsburg.”