TTABlog Test: Is MAYELA Confusable with MAYA for Wine?

Oakville Hill Cellar opposed an application to register the mark MAYELA for wines, claiming likely confusion with its registered mark MAYA for wine. Applicant Peninsula started behind the 8-ball because the goods are identical, there are no limitations as to price, and the Board must presume that the goods travel in the same, normal channels of trade to the same classes of consumers. But what about the marks? Oakville Hills Cellar, Inc. dba Dalla Valle Vineyards v. Peninsula Vinicultores, S.L., Opposition No. 91287178 (August 4, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Catherine Dugan O'Connor).

The Board found that MAYA is an arbitrary term when applied to wine, and so it is a conceptually strong mark. As to commercial strength, the evidence indicated that MAYA brand wine "has been well-received by and is known among a few wine critics and commentators, as stated in publications and product listings available to the public." However, there was no testimony or evidence as to the length of time the wine has been sold, or as to the extent of its marketing, advertising, distribution or sales of such goods.

Despite the accolades Opposer’s MAYA-branded wine has received for its quality, Opposer’s evidence falls short of establishing that MAYA has significant commercial strength as a trademark for wine. Based on the record before us, we find that the MAYA mark falls slightly above the middle of the spectrum of commercial strength.

Applicant Peninsula relied on several third-party uses of marks for wine (TAMAYA, MAIA, MAYU, and MAYACAMAS) and third-party registrations for wine and other alcoholic beverages (e.g., DIVA MAYA, MAYARI, MAYAZUL) in attempting to show that the MAYA mark is a weak source indicator. The Board was not impressed.

Having considered Applicant’s evidence of third-party use and registrations, based on this record we do not find that consumers encounter so many MAYA-formative marks for wine, or that so many similar marks are registered for similar goods, that consumers have become conditioned to distinguish the marks based on minute distinctions or that the word MAYA has a normally understood and well- recognized descriptive or suggestive meaning for the goods.

Peninsula also submitted a number of sets of coexisting third-party marks registered for wine, arguing that "it is common to use personal names as trademarks for wine and consumers have become accustomed to distinguishing such marks based on minor differences." (e.g., MIA, CARA MIA, MIA BEA, MIA BELLA, MIA ROSA, MIA NIPOTE, and MIASANGRIA). The Board found these pairs of registrations to be of "little probative value." 

Applicant’s evidence shows on its face that these sets of marks have registered, but we have no insight into the circumstances of their registration or the context of their use, such as the extent of registration of similar marks for similar goods or any coexistence arrangements that may exist between their owners. The coexistence of these marks on the register “does not prove that they coexisted during that time without confusion in the marketplace.”

Turning to the marks, the Board observed that, "[i[n both MAYA and MAYELA the 'A' and 'ELA' sounds are likely to be perceived as trailing softly from the “MAY-” portion and do little to distinguish the marks visually or phonetically." This is" especially true for goods like wine that can be ordered by spoken request in bars or restaurants where a bottle with the words may not be available."

It is true that MAYA does not appear as such within Applicant’s mark, and the marks do not have the same number of letters or syllables or identical pronunciations. But such arguments encourage a prohibited side-by-side comparison of the marks.

As to the meanings of the marks, the Board found it unnecessary to consider the "precise derivation and meaning of either mark because evidence submitted by both sides amply supports a finding that MAYELA is likely to be perceived as a female given name that, like some connotations of MAYA, has Spanish or Latin American ties." 

Furthermore, "[t]o the extent consumers understand the names “Maya” and “Mayela” to be derived from or otherwise related to one another, they may believe that wines sold under the MAYELA mark are an extension of the MAYA brand. *** [I]n view of [Applicant's] statement that 'Mayela (from Maya) is the goddess of spring and crops' the connotation of a female name related to the Maya language or culture is all but inescapable."

The Board found that none of the relevant DuPont factors weighed against a finding of likely confusions, and so it sustained the opposition.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: How did you do? Did the Board undervalue the third-party evidence? Do you think confusion is likely in the real world?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.