LOTE MAESTRO for Alcoholic Beverages Confusable with MAESTRO for Tequila, Says TTAB

In a 69-page decision, the Board granted a petition for cancellation of registrations for the mark LOTE MAESTRO in standard characters and the three-dimensial product configuration mark shown below, for "alcoholic beverages, except beer," concluding that confusion is likely with the registered mark MAESTRO for "tequila." The Board also denied a counterclaim to cancel the MAESTRO registration on the ground of abandonment. This blog post will attempt to hit the high points. Maestro Tequilero, S.A. de C.V. v. Gildardo Partida Hermosillo, Cancellation No. 92074808 (February 10, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Catherine Dugan O'Connor).

The Board began with Respondent Hermosillo's counterclaim. He contended that the petitioner never used the mark MAESTRO except as part of a unitary phrase such as MAESTRO TEQUILERO or MAESTRO DOBEL. The Board, however, found that petitioner's manner of use of the MAESTRO mark was sufficient to avoid abandonment of its trademark rights.

It is well settled that a mark need not appear as the only mark—or even the most prominent mark—on the packaging for goods in order to constitute trademark use. A mark owner has some latitude in selecting the mark it wants to register and “may seek to register any portion of a composite mark if that portion presents a separate and distinct commercial impression” which indicates the source of the goods and distinguishes them from the goods of others.

The Board found petitioner uses of MAESTRO "on a separate line, in a different size font, and at times with its own trademark registration symbol create a separate and distinct commercial impression from the other words and matter on the label and bottle sufficient to constitute use of the MAESTRO mark."

Turning to the Section 2(d) petition for cancellation of Hermosillo's registrations, the Board unsurprisingly found that petitioner’s tequila and Hermosillo's "alcoholic beverages, except beer" are legally identical in part. The channels of trade and classes of consumers for the overlapping goods are presumed to be the same. These DuPont factors weighed "heavily" in favor of likelihood of confusion.

Because the identified goods are unrestricted as to quality or price, the Board "must consider the perspective of the least sophisticated potential purchaser, not just purchasers of Respondent’s higher priced offerings, with the fourth DuPont factor neutral in our analysis.

Comparing the MAESTRO mark with Hermosillo's LOTE MAESTRO standard character mark, the found them to be "quite similar." Hermosillo conceded that the word LOTE, meaning "batch," has little source-identifying significance. The MAESTRO mark and Hermosillo's configuration mark are less similar, but when compared in their entireties, the Board "still [found] that they are similar because both feature the dominant verbal element MAESTRO, and the degree of similarity needed for confusion to be likely is lower where, as here, the goods are legally identical in part." And so, the first DuPont factor weighed in favor of likelihood of confusion with respect to both of Respondent’s marks.

Considering all of the evidence and arguments presented under the fifth and sixth DuPont factors, Petitioner’s MAESTRO mark has at most modest commercial strength and is somewhat conceptually weak, with these factors, on balance, not swaying our likelihood of confusion analysis. No factor weighs against a likelihood of confusion.

And so, the Board granted the petition to cancel Hermosillo's registrations.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: The entire opinion is worth reading, including the discussion of petitioner's survey evidence, the strength of petitioner's mark, and the lack of evidence of actual confusion. Do you agree with the conclusion regarding the product configuration mark?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.