Green Chili cannot register LITTLE ANITA’S for restaurants because Little Anita’s used it first

Decision Desk · September 3, 2026 decision · Nonprecedential

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) is the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office panel that decides challenges to trademark registrations and appeals from refused applications. The Board marked this opinion nonprecedential, meaning it does not bind the Board in later cases.

Green Chili, Inc. cannot register LITTLE ANITA’S for restaurant services. The Board found that Little Anita’s Mexican Food Inc. had used the identical mark first for the same services and that customer confusion was inevitable. Opinion, p. 22.

Source: the Board’s complete opinion in case 91294339, with page citations below. This report describes the decision; it is not legal advice.

Green Chili’s application, a request to register a mark, was filed on January 24, 2024 and covered sit-down and take-out restaurant services. Little Anita’s filed an opposition, a challenge to a pending application, alleging that Green Chili’s mark would confuse customers with its earlier restaurant mark. Green Chili admitted in its written response that the marks and restaurant services were identical. Opinion, pp. 1–2, 7.

The Board removed Green Chili’s documents and witness accounts from the evidence it considered. Green Chili did not respond to Little Anita’s request to remove those submissions. Little Anita’s witness Robb Haltom said the company began using LITTLE ANITA’S for restaurants in New Mexico on May 4, 1984. Both companies acknowledged a May 4, 2015 agreement allowing Green Chili to use the mark for an initial ten years. Opinion, pp. 3, 5, 8.

Green Chili argued that its restaurants operated in Colorado, while Little Anita’s operated in New Mexico. Green Chili also argued that Little Anita’s remained silent from 2005 through 2015 while Green Chili built its business under the mark, then permitted its use under their agreement. Little Anita’s countered that it had customers in Colorado and still advertised nationally. Opinion, pp. 8–9, 20.

The Board found that Little Anita’s had used LITTLE ANITA’S first for restaurant services. It said Green Chili’s claimed 2005 and 2015 dates were later than the May 4, 1984 start established by Haltom’s unchallenged account. The Board said the different restaurant locations did not change its analysis because Green Chili sought to register the mark without geographic limits. It assumed the companies would reach the same kinds of customers because their restaurant services matched and Green Chili’s application listed no limits on customers. Opinion, pp. 6–7, 9–10.

The Board said Little Anita’s marketing figures lacked comparisons and customer-exposure data needed to tell whether customers widely recognized the mark. The Board said the customer reviews told it little about whether customers were confused because the customers had not explained whether they were confused or why. Opinion, pp. 15, 18.

The Board wrote that “we find confusion is inevitable” because the marks and restaurant services were identical. It rejected Green Chili’s arguments based on Little Anita’s delay and past permission because it found confusion inevitable. Opinion, p. 22.

The decision concerned whether Green Chili could register the mark nationwide for its stated restaurant services, not whether either company may use the name in Colorado. Opinion, p. 9.

This report describes the decision as issued; it does not follow any later appeal.

Sources

• The Board’s complete opinion; GleanMark case record.