CAFC Affirms TTAB: SAZERAC STITCHES Confusable With SAZERAC for Houseware Store Services

In a nonprecedential ruling, the CAFC upheld the TTAB's decision [pdf here] affirming a Section 2(d) refusal of the mark SAZERAC STITCHES for retail store services featuring an array of household items, including furniture, lighting fixtures, and candle holders, in view of the registered mark SAZERAC for, among other things, “Online retail store services featuring distilled spirits, beverage glassware, cocktail accessories, T-shirts, caps, postcards, and cocktail recipe books." The Board had focused on the first three DuPont factors in its analysis; the CAFC ruled that substantial evidence supported the Board's findings of fact, and it affirmed the Board's ultimate conclusion. In re Laurel Designs, Inc. Appeal No. 2024-1203 (Fed. Cir. January 13, 2026) [not precedential].

The CAFC reviews the Board’s weighing of the DuPont factors de novo but reviews the Board’s factual findings on each DuPont factor for substantial evidence. In re Charger Ventures LLC, 64 F.4th 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2023). 

In evaluating the second and third factors, the Board acknowledged that the products offered by the parties were not identical. However, "the services in the application versus 'the Cited Registration do not have to be identical or directly competitive to support a finding of a likelihood of confusion.'" The evidence showed that "at least ten third-party providers of online retail store services" feature applicant's goods and registrant's goods "all under the same mark."

In light of that evidence, the Board that "consumers are used to seeing the types of goods featured by [Laurel Designs] and the cited registrant offered under a single mark via online retail store services,” and therefore, “the similarity or dissimilarity of established, likely-to-continue trade channels . . . favor[ed] a finding of likelihood of confusion.”

Accordingly, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s fact finding that ten online retailers carrying goods found in both the Application and the Cited Registration supported a finding of likelihood of confusion, and we see no legal error in its analysis.

As to the marks, applicant argued that the Board did not consider its mark as a whole, but the CAFC observed that "[i]t is not improper for the Board to determine that, for rational reasons, it should give more or less weight to a particular feature” of a mark."

[W]e determine that the Board weighed SAZERAC STITCHES in its entirety and did not legally err by making a reasonable factual determination that SAZERAC is “dominant in [SAZERAC STITCHES] because it is the first term and the element most likely to be remembered.”

Finally, in weighing the DuPont factors, the Board ruled that "[s]ince the Board’s factual findings for each DuPont factor considered are supported by substantial evidence, and all factors favored a likelihood of confusion, we affirm the Board’s ultimate conclusion.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: The cited registration is owned by Sazerac Brands, an alcoholic beverage company.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.