TTABlog Test: Is "TASTE THE POETRY" for Vodka Confusable with "POETRY" for Wine?

Twin Peaks Winery opposed an application to register TASTE THE POETRY for vodka, claiming likely confusion with its registered mark POETRY for wine. Keeping in mind that there is no per se rule that all alcoholic beverages are related, how do you think this came out? Twin Peaks Winery, Inc. v. Nocturnal Vodka, LLC, Opposition No. 91288135 (September 11, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Jessica B. Bradley).

Applicant Nocturnal did not submit testimony or evidence, and did not file a brief. The Board ignored the arguments that Noctural set forth in its answer to the notice of opposition.

The Goods: To show the relatedness of the involved goods, Twin Peaks submitted website printouts from nine third-party companies showing use of the same mark for wine and vodka, TSDR printouts of 16 third-party registrations, and website printouts of 12 cocktail recipes with wine and vodka as ingredients. "[C]omplementary use has long been recognized as a relevant consideration in determining a likelihood of confusion."

Twin Peaks also argued that "vodka is often derived from wine grapes, which creates a natural association between the two goods in the marketplace, such that consumers would expect wine and vodka to emanate from the same source." The Board rejected that argument. "We do not consider that the use of a similar ingredient in making a good necessarily equates to consumers perceiving a relatedness between the finished products in the marketplace, and Opposer has not provided evidence demonstrating such a connection."

The Board concluded that the goods are related for purposed of Section 2(d).

Channels of Trade/Classes of Consumers: Twin Peaks provided evidence of six online retailers offering both wine and vodka for sale on their websites, demonstrating that the parties' trade channels are the same. As to the customers, "wine and vodka are “general consumer goods that are sold to adult members of the general public," and so the classes of consumers are the same, "or at least overlap." Furthermore, "[b]ecause wine and vodka 'can be sold at low price points, many customers will not exercise great care in their purchases.'"

Strength of Opposer's Mark: The Board deemed the mark POETRY to be conceptually strong, but the impact of this DuPont factor "is reduced by the absence of evidence of marketplace strength."

The Marks: The Board found that "POETRY" is the dominant portion of applicant’s mark becuase it is arbitrary for vodka (as well as for Twin Peaks’ wine), "whereas 'taste the' is less distinctive and does not distinguish the marks given that both parties products are alcoholic beverages which are 'tasted' when consumed." Furthermore, "the marks sound similar given the use of the identical and distinctive term POETRY."

The risk here is that consumers will believe that Opposer and Applicant are connected because of their shared use of the word ‘[poetry],’ featured so prominently in their marks used for similar [goods].”

Since the dominant term in applicant’s mark is identical to Twin Peaks' mark POETRY, "the meaning and overall impression conveyed by the two marks are similar when considered in relation to the parties’ respective alcoholic beverages."

Overall, while the marks when viewed in their entireties are not identical, we find that they are similar in sound, appearance, meaning, and commercial impression, and that the similarities in the marks outweigh their differences.

Conclusion: The Board concluded that confusion is likely, and so it sustained the opposition

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: No surprise here. There may not be a per se rule that all alcoholic beverages are related under 2(d), but it almost always works out that way (unless someone doesn't put in the right evidence).

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.