直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

INCONTESTABLE® Blog

Benihana Restaurant Hopes to Block Rapper Benny Hunna from Trademark Registration

January 05, 2015

Authored and Edited by Julia Anne Matheson; Danielle Wright Bulger

Benihana, the nation’s largest operator of teppanyaki restaurants, is fighting to prevent a Mississippi rapper from registering the trademark “Benny Hunna” for entertainment services before the judicial brand of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. See Noodle Time, Inc. v. Benny Hodge, TTAB Opposition No. 91214649.

The rapper filed an application to register his stage name BENNY HUNNA for “[e]ntertainment services in the nature of live musical performances,” but the road to registration has not come without a fight. In opposing this mark, Benihana points to over 50 years of use of its BENIHANA mark in the restaurant and franchise field, and alleges that the BENNY HUNNA mark unfairly trades upon its established and significant goodwill, and will cause dilution of its famous, Benihana™ mark. The company relies exclusively on registrations covering restaurant and food and beverage classes, as the company does not apparently own any registrations in the field of entertainment.

The rapper whose legal name is Benny Hodge, claims the BENNY HUNNA mark differs sufficiently from Benihana in sight, sound and meaning such that confusion is unlikely, and emphasizes that the mark consists of the Applicant’s birth name, Benny.

As the opposition is in its initial stages, it may be some time before the TTAB ultimately issues a ruling.

Tags

dilution, likelihood of confusion, opposition

Copyright © 2015 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – California

October 19-20, 2026

San Francisco

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – New York

September 28-29, 2026

New York

Conference

13th Annual Summit for Women Leaders in Life Sciences Law

July 29-30, 2026

Boston

Webinar

Successful Strategies to Win Alice Motions and Fee Awards in Patent Cases Against Non-Practicing Entities

July 22, 2026

Webinar

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Federal Circuit IP Blog

“2” Does Not Provide Written Description Support for “1”: Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Invalidation of Patent

July 8, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics for March–May 2026

July 2, 2026

Articles

EPR Academy, Part 4 of 6: Choosing Between EPR, IPR, PGR, and Reissue

July 1, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP