CAFC Overturns TTAB Dismissal of SFERA Opposition, Remanding for Reconsideration of1st and 2nd DuPont Factors

The CAFC vacated and remanded the Board's decision [pdf here] dismissing an opposition to registration of the mark SFERA in the form shown below, for perfumery and cosmetics (Class 3), leather handbags and wallets (Class 18), and clothing (Class 25), in view of the registered mark SFERRA for table linen, bed sheets, lap robes, bath towels, and the like (Class 24). The appellate court concluded that the Board "erred in weighing the first Dupont factor and failed to address and evaluate relevant evidence concerning the second Dupont factor." Sferra Fine Linens, LLC v. Sfera Joven S.A., 2025 USPQ2d 766 (Fed. Cir. 2025) [not precedential].

The Board determined that “[a]lthough the marks are similar and Opposer’s pleaded mark[s] enjoy[] some commercial strength, Opposer has not shown that the goods are related, or that they travel in the same channels of trade to the same classes of consumers, and this failure is dispositive.” 

On appeal, Opposer challenged the Board’s weighing of the similarity of the marks (Dupont factor one) and the Board’s factual findings related to: similarity of the goods (DuPont factor two); similarity of trade channels (DuPont factor three); consumer sophistication (Dupont factor four); and strength of Opposer’s marks (Dupont factor five). 

First, in view of its Naterra decision, the CAFC agreed with Opposer that the first DuPont must be weighed heavily in favor of a likelihood of confusion.

Second, the Board erred by failing to consider that Opposer itself  “sells the goods . . . of both parties,” which “is relevant to a relatedness analysis.”

Third, The Board recognized the identified goods are presumed to travel in the normal channels of trade, but found that “Opposer [did] not provide[] any evidence regarding the ‘normal’ channels of trade for Applicant’s identified goods in the United States.”

As to the fourth factor, consumer sophistication, substantial evidence supported the finding that this factor was neutral.

As to the fifth factor, Opposer argued that the Board improperly discounted its sales and advertising figures based on a lack of comparative evidence to “other brands of linens and related products.” The CAFC concluded that the Board "appropriately considered Opposer’s sales and advertising figures, along with Opposer’s underwhelming media presence, and reasonably found that Opposer’s marks are "commercially somewhat strong.'"

Conclusion: "Because the Board erred in weighing the first Dupont factor and failed to address and evaluate relevant evidence concerning the second Dupont factor, [the CAFC] vacated the Board’s decision and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: Sfera nuff.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.