CAFC Upholds TTAB: BASIN BEVERAGE CO. Confusable With TAHOE BASIN, GREAT BASIN COFFEE, and NEW BASIN DISTILLING COMPANY

In a non-precedential ruling, the CAFC upheld the Board's decision [here] affirming the Section 2(d) refusal of the mark BASIN BEVERAGE CO. for "Tea-based beverages; Coffee based beverages; Kombucha tea," in International Class 30; "Beverages, namely, beer, sparkling water, non-alcoholic water-based beverages," in International Class 32; and "Beverages, namely, wine, hard seltzer; Hard kombucha tea," in International Class 33 [BEVERAGE CO. disclaimed]. As to the class 30 goods, the Board found confusion likely with the registered mark TAHOE BASIN for coffee and chai tea, and GREAT BASIN COFFEE, registered on the Supplemental Register for "coffee, tea, and coffee based beverages," and as to the remaining goods, with the mark NEW BASIN DISTILLING COMPANY for liquor [DISTILLING COMPANY disclaimed). In re Matthew Amoss, Appeal No. 2024-1617 (Fed. Cir. December 16, 2025) [not precedential].

The court set forth in some detail the Board's straightforward reasoning and concluded that the Board's findings were supported by substantial evidence. Applicant/Appellant Amoss contended that the Board erred by according the “GREAT BASIN COFFEE COMPANY” mark a greater scope of protection than it deserved as a mark on the Supplemental Register. The CAFC was unmoved.

[W]e see no basis in our law to restrict the scope of protection afforded to such a mark merely because it appears on the Supplemental Register, particularly where, as here, the mark still functions as a source identifier and the relevant DuPont factors otherwise support a likelihood of confusion.

Further, placement on the Supplemental Register reflects only a lack of inherent distinctiveness, not an inability to identify source or cause confusion. See id. (explaining that placement on the Supplemental Register does not render a mark incapable of causing confusion because (1) such marks must still be capable of distinguishing goods and (2) a lack of inherent distinctiveness does not necessarily equate to generic or common descriptive wording; thus, such non-generic descriptiveness may still support a § 2(d) refusal). Put simply, nothing in § 2(d) indicates that such registration limits a mark’s capacity to serve as a basis for a likelihood of confusion refusal. Cf. 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d).

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: "Non-generic descriptiveness" is a phrase I haven't heard before.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.