On Remand, TTAB Reverses Course, Sustains Section 2(d) Opposition to ECHO D'ANGELUS for Alcoholic Beverages and Wine

On remand from the CAFC, the Board reversed course, sustaining this opposition to registration of the mark ECHO D’ANGÉLUS for "alcoholic beverages except beers" and "wines." The Board had originally found the mark not confusingly similar with opposer's mark ECHO DE LYNCH BAGES, for wine, placing "great weight" on its finding that the marks "incorporate[d] different-appearing house marks as part of unitary expressions." [pdf here]. The CAFC concluded that that finding was not supported by substantial evidence and, "since the Board gave 'predominant' weight to the similarity factor in its DuPont analysis, it is not clear whether the Board would have arrived at the same conclusion . . .." [TTABlogged here]. Chateau Lynch-Bages v. Chateau Angelus S.A., Opposition No. 91268431 (On Remand October 15, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Thomas L. Casagrande).

The Board was tasked with the following: "(1) re-assess our finding on the first likelihood-of-confusion factor, stripped of the finding that the last terms of the parties’ respective marks are their house marks; and then (2) re-weigh the relevant factors in light of our reassessed finding on the first likelihood-of-confusion factor."

As to the marks, even putting aside whether "house marks" are involved, the Board found that "[s]till, the visual and aural dissimilarity in the marks’ respective last words is a significant counterbalance to the identity of the first terms," and that "the marks’ dissimilarities slightly outweigh the marks’ similarities in presenting the marks’ overall commercial impressions."

Turning to the re-weighing of the DuPont factors, the Board reiterated its undisturbed findings that several factors weighed in favor of a conclusion of likelihood of confusion: "the goods are identical in part; the channels of trade are not limited and so are presumed identical; and the classes of customers are presumed identical as well. Purchaser care and sophistication was neutral." The Board also noted that "the fact that the goods are identical in part is a significant consideration in the likelihood-of-confusion calculus."

On the other hand "[w]eighing against a conclusion that confusion is likely is our revised finding . . . that the marks have both similarities and differences, with the dissimilarities slightly outweighing the similarities." Even so, this slight degree of difference "does not tilt enough in Applicant’s favor to outweigh the other relevant factors, including the overlap in the goods, that indicate that confusion is likely."

Overall, it is our conclusion that the re-weighing of the relevant factors presents a very close question. In inter partes decisions spanning the past eight decades, the Federal Circuit and its predecessor court have consistently noted that, where the evidence presented results in a close or doubtful case as to whether confusion is likely, any doubt must be resolved in favor of a prior registrant against a newcomer.

Resolving its doubt in Opposer’s favor, the Board sustained the Section 2(d) claim.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: This came as a bit of a surprise to me.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.