TMOB Rejects Pizza Pizza’s Opposition to TEXAS BARBECUE OF CANADA

The TMOB rejected Pizza Pizza’s opposition to TEXAS BARBECUE OF CANADA, finding that descriptive wording carried little weight in the confusion analysis.

On October 19, 2026, the Trademarks Opposition Board rejected Pizza Pizza Royalty Limited Partnership’s opposition to the TEXAS BARBECUE OF CANADA & Design trademark, owned by 11478290 Canada Ltd (the Applicant) (Pizza Pizza Royalty Limited Partnership v 11478290 Canada Ltd, 2026 TMOB 199).

The Board found that “Texas barbecue” describes a style of cooking. It does not point to any one business. Because the shared words carried little weight, the differences between the two marks decided the case. Deborah Meltzer of motif IP represented the Applicant at the hearing.

The marks

Opponent’s Mark (Pizza Pizza Royalty Limited Partnership)

Applicant’s Mark (11478290 Canada Ltd)

TEXAS BAR B QUE & Design, Reg. Nos. TMA407322, TMA546194 and TMA630547

TEXAS BARBECUE OF CANADA & Design, Application No. 2159366

Both marks use the words “Texas barbecue.” Beyond those words, they share no design elements.

Background

The Applicant applied to register TEXAS BARBECUE OF CANADA & Design (application no. 2159366) on January 11, 2022. The application covers barbecue foods and sauces, plus restaurant and catering services. Its exclusive licensee runs a Texas-style barbecue restaurant in Desbarats, Ontario, which opened in August 2024.

Pizza Pizza opposed in November 2024, relying on three registrations for TEXAS BAR B QUE & Design. Those registrations cover restaurant and take-out services, pizza, and barbecued chicken. Its statement of opposition pleaded that the mark was confusing (s. 12(1)(d)), that the Applicant wasn’t entitled to register it (s. 16), and that it wasn’t distinctive (s. 2).

The evidence was lopsided:

Pizza Pizza filed only certified copies of its registrations. It filed no evidence of use, no written representations, and did not appear at the hearing. Its case rested on the pleadings and its registrations.

The Applicant filed evidence of use dating back to a December 2020 market test. In its first year, the restaurant had $465,933 in net sales and about 24,000 customers.

The Applicant also filed marketplace evidence. It showed Canadian restaurants, recipes, grocery products and a cookbook all using “Texas BBQ” or “Texas barbecue.”

The decision

The Board dismissed the s. 16 and s. 2 grounds right away. Without evidence of use, Pizza Pizza could not meet its initial burden on either one. The case turned on confusion under s. 12(1)(d), and nearly every factor favoured the Applicant.

Factor (s. 6(5))

Favoured

Why

Inherent distinctiveness and extent known

Applicant

The Texas map, branding-iron stamp, maple leaf and “of Canada” give the Applicant’s mark more distinctiveness. Pizza Pizza showed no use, and had disclaimed TEXAS and BAR B QUE.

Length of time in use

Applicant

Use since 2021 versus no evidence of use.

Goods, services and trade

Opponent (chicken and restaurant services only)

Restaurant services overlap directly. The other foods were not similar enough.

Degree of resemblance

Applicant, slightly

The marks sound alike in “Texas barbecue,” but share no design elements. The fonts and layout (horizontal versus vertical) differ. Texas paired with Canada suggests a distinct idea.

State of the marketplace

Applicant

“Texas BBQ” is a recognized cooking style that many Canadian businesses use.

On resemblance, the Board treated the star as the most striking part of Pizza Pizza’s mark, since its words are descriptive. For the Applicant’s mark, the most striking element was the mark as a whole. The Board also found the idea of Texas barbecue of Canada unique, because Texas-style barbecue has no obvious link to Canada.

The Board concluded that consumers seeing “Texas BBQ” in a restaurant or food mark can tell brands apart by their other features. The opposition was rejected.

Key takeaways

Descriptive words don’t make a monopoly. No one trader owns “Texas barbecue” for barbecue food. When the shared words describe the product, small differences elsewhere can be enough to avoid confusion.

Design does the heavy lifting. The Applicant’s Texas map, branding-iron stamp, maple leaf and “of Canada” set the mark apart, even though both marks lead with the same words.

Marketplace evidence works. Internet printouts have hearsay limits. Even so, the Board accepted them to infer that “Texas BBQ” is a cooking style widely used in Canada.

By Deborah Meltzer — motif Insights