Precedential No. 4: TTAB Sustains Opposition to CUADRA for Alcoholic Beverage Due to Lack of Bona Fide Intent

In a dubiously precedential ruling, the Board sustained this opposition to registration of the mark CUADRA for "alcoholic beverages, except beer; distilled spirits produced in Mexico in accordance with specific standards," finding that applicant "fail[ed] to show a bona fide intention to use the mark in a real and legitimate commercial sense on the identified goods in United States commerce at the time it filed [its] application." Tequila Cuadra S. de RL de CV v. Manufacturera de Botas Cuadra, S.A. de C.V., 2025 USPQ2d 729 (TTAB 2025) [precedential] (Opinion by Judge Lawrence T. Stanley, Jr.).

Opposer had the initial burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that applicant lacked a bona fide intent to use the mark on the identified goods on the filing date of its application. "The absence of any documentary evidence on the part of an applicant regarding such intent constitutes objective proof sufficient to prove that the applicant lacks a bona fide intention to its use its mark in commerce." "If an opposer establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut that prima facie case by producing evidence which would establish that it had the requisite bona fide intent to use the mark when it filed its application."

Applicant had no documentary evidence to support its claim of bona fide intent: no communications with the necessary regulatory authority in the United States concerning the production and sale of any CUADRA branded alcoholic beverage, no communications, no invoices, no contracts, no labels, no formulas, no applications for regulatory approval, no purchase orders, no business plans, and no meeting minutes.

The only documents that the applicant relied on are "documents showing Applicant’s ownership and/or control of the land, facilities, equipment and personnel necessary to produce and market the Identified Goods in U.S. commerce under the CUADRA mark." Those documents related, however, to applicant’s foreign capacity (i.e., applicant’s part-ownership of various wineries outside the United States).

This prima facie showing by the opposer shifted the burden of production onto applicant. (Of course, the ultimate burden of persuasion remained on opposer.) Applicant submitted documentary evidence - including advertising, social media posts, and Internet web pages showing bottles labeled CUADRA -  and testimony regarding its part ownership of several wineries in Mexico. However, its evidence fell short of rebutting opposer's prima facie case.

The Board noted that applicant's labels for the CUADRA-branded bottles of alcoholic beverages had Spanish-language text and did not appear to be targeted to U.S. consumers. The social media posts came from the account of Vinedo San Miguel (e.g., Facebook and Instagram), not applicant’s account. Nothing in the social media posts indicated an intention to specifically target U.S. alcoholic beverage consumers. "[E]ven if United States consumers engaged with these ads, that would not prove Applicant’s intent to offer alcoholic beverages under the CUADRA mark in the United States on March 20, 2020 when the application was filed."

Applicant relied heavily on the principle that "an applicant’s capacity to market and/or manufacture the identified goods is evidence that weighs against a finding that an applicant lacked bona fide intent to use." Swatch AG v. M. Z. Berger & Co., Opp. No. 91187092, 2013 TTAB LEXIS 515, at *45 (TTAB 2013), aff’d, 787 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2015). However, there was no evidence of applicant's capacity to produce alcoholic beverages. Instead, it relied on the capacity of its commonly owned winegrowers based in Mexico. The Board was not impressed.

Even considering the capacity of the commonly-owned winegrowers, such as Vinedo San Miguel, Applicant failed to produce any communications between it and those commonly-owned winegrowers discussing even a plan to produce a CUADRA-branded alcoholic beverage, let alone any documents or testimony demonstrating that concrete steps have been taken towards bringing such a product to the U.S. market (or any other market)

Finally, the Board observed that, even applicant’s testimony and documentary evidence were taken as supporting "a bona fide intent to use the CUADRA mark in connection with alcoholic beverages generally (e.g., in Mexico), the record as a whole does not support a finding of a bona fide intent to use the mark in United States commerce." (Emphasis by the Board).

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: Opposer also claimed a likelihood of confusion with its identical mark for tequila, but the Board found it unnecessary to consider that claim. 

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.