IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—Fed. Cir.: Beverage company’s applied-for trademark likely to cause confusion, (Dec 15, 2025)

By Steven D. Cole, J.D.

The applicant’s registration was properly denied based on an assessment of the relevant DuPont factors when comparing the applicant’s BASIN BEVERAGE CO. mark to cited registered marks.

Substantial evidence supported a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (Board) upholding of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s denial of a trademark registration, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The applicant sought to register the mark “BASIN BEVERAGE CO.” for goods identified in three separate International Classes. Each Class application was ultimately denied because the DuPont factors as a whole favored the finding of a likelihood of confusion with certain registered marks. The applicant’s arguments on appeal were unpersuasive (In Amoss, No. 24-1617 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 15, 2025)).

Application. The applicant filed a multiple-class application to register the mark “BASIN BEVERAGE CO.” on the Principal Register for goods identified in three separate International Classes: (1) “Tea-based beverages; Coffee based beverages; Kombucha tea,” in International Class 30; (2) “Beverages, namely, beer, sparkling water, non-alcoholic water-based beverages,” in International Class 32; and (3) “Beverages, namely, wine, hard seltzer; Hard kombucha tea,” in International Class 33. The Examining Attorney found that consumer confusion was likely to occur with respect to the applicant’s mark and cited registered marks for each Class application and refused registration accordingly. The Board affirmed the refusals, and the Federal Circuit determined that substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings.

International Class 30. Refusal of the applicant’s registration under International Class 30 was based primarily on the likelihood of confusion with the marks “GREAT BASIN COFFEE COMPANY” on the Supplemental Register and “TAHOE BASIN” on the Principal Register.

Because the goods of the applicant and those of the registrants included tea- and coffee-based beverages, they were in part legally identical under the second DuPont factor (similarity of the goods). For this reason, the marks were presumed to share the same channels of trade and purchases under the third and fourth DuPont factors, respectively. The first DuPont factor (similarity of the marks) favored a likelihood of confusion based on the term “BASIN” being the dominant feature across the marks. The fifth and sixth DuPont factors (fame of the prior mark, and number and nature of similar marks in use, respectively) were neutral—the record lacked meaningful evidence of strength or weakness, and the applicant’s offering of limited third-party uses, each involving differently modified “BASIN” terms, fell short of showing any conceptual or commercial weakness of the cited marks.

The applicant also contended that the mark “GREAT BASIN COFFEE COMPANY” should have been afforded a lesser scope of protection due to its placement on the Supplemental Register. However, nothing in Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act indicates that such a registration limits a mark’s capacity to serve as a basis for a likelihood-of-confusion refusal.

International Classes 32 and 33. Refusal of the applicant’s registration under International Classes 32 and 33 were based primarily on the likelihood of confusion with the mark “NEW BASIN DISTILLING COMPANY” for goods in International Class 33 identified as “liquor.”

Regarding the second DuPont factor, although the application and cited registration were not directed to identical goods, the evidence demonstrated a close relationship among beer, wine, and liquor. Under the third and fourth DuPont factors, the channels of trade and purchasers, which were unrestricted in the application and cited registration, overlapped. As to the first DuPont factor, the term “BASIN” was dominant in both marks. And as with International Class 30, factors five and six only very slightly weighed against a finding that confusion was likely. The applicant’s offering of eight third-party registrations using “BASIN” with beer or liquor and four third-party uses of “BASIN” for beer were insufficient to show the considerable level of third-party use needed to narrow the scope of protection afforded to “NEW BASIN DISTILLING COMPANY.”

The Case is No. 24-1617.

Judge: Lourie, A.

Attorneys: Fabian Nehrbass (Garvey, Smith & Nehrbass, Patent Attorneys, LLC) for Matthew Amoss. Erica Jeung Dickey, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, for John A. Squires.

Cases: Trademark FedCirNews USPTO