IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—Fed. Cir.: Federal Circuit upholds decision not to register ‘Sazerac Stitches‘ mark, (Jan 13, 2026)

By Steven Melendez

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board previously found the name likely to be confused with an existing “Sazerac” mark.

A Federal Circuit panel unanimously affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB)’s decision denying registration of the SAZERAC STITCHES mark for various categories of “retail store services,” based on likelihood of confusion with an existing SAZERAC mark (In re Laurel Designs, LLC, No. 24-1203 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 13, 2026)).

Background. Laurel Designs LLC sought to register SAZERAC STITCHES for “retail stores services” involving a list of various home goods. An examining attorney declined to allow registration, citing likelihood of confusion with an existing SAZERAC mark registered by the liquor company Sazerac Brands LLC. That mark is registered for, among other things, “Online retail store services featuring distilled spirits, beverage glassware, cocktail accessories, T-shirts, caps, postcards, and cocktail recipe books,” in International Class 35.

Laurel Designs appealed to the TTAB, but the Board affirmed the refusal to register, citing the likelihood of confusion. In particular, the Board pointed to three of the traditional factors from In re E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., including the similarity of the marks, similarity of the goods, and similarity of established trade channels. The TTAB ruling noted that a number of online retailers offer services featuring both the types of goods in the application and the goods in the existing registration under the same marks. The ruling also noted the marks when “considered in their entireties” are “similar in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression due to the shared term SAZERAC.”

Laurel Designs appealed to the Federal Circuit which, citing precedent, reviewed legal conclusions de novo and “findings of fact for substantial evidence.”

Similarity of services. Laurel Designs argued there was insufficient evidence that the relevant goods and services were related or that circumstances around their marketing could make consumers think they come from the same source. The company also contended that the TTAB failed to properly weigh evidence around “actual trade channels” and the relevant class of consumers. Laurel Designs also argued that the goods and services listed in the application don’t actually overlap with those from the existing registration.

But the Federal Circuit found “substantial evidence” supports the TTAB ruling on similarity of the services, including at least 10 providers of online retail store services offering goods from both the existing registration and the application under the same mark. That evidence also supports that the goods or services are sold through the same trade channels, according to the ruling.

Laurel Designs also argued its customers would be more discerning in buying items like furniture or light fixtures than Sazerac customers would be in buying glassware or coasters. But the court found that argument “unpersuasive,” pointing to a wide range of “more casually purchased” goods in the application, including “light bulbs, switches and cords, knobs, candle holders, tree skirts, planters, vases, rainbow decor items, serving trays, night lights, ornaments, bookends, and serving trays.”

Similarity of the marks. The TTAB ruling found that SAZERAC is “subsumed into” and is “the dominant portion” of SAZERAC STITCHES, according to the Federal Circuit ruling, and found that consumers might perceive SAZERAC STITCHES as a variant of SAZERAC.

Laurel Designs argued the Board erred by not considering the SAZERAC STITCHES mark “in its entirety.” But the court found that the TTAB did, in fact, consider the mark in its entirety, even if it made a “reasonable determination” to give greater weight to the SAZERAC portion.

The court also affirmed the TTAB weighing of the DuPont factors, all of which weighed in favor of likelihood of confusion, affirming the ruling to deny registration.

The Case is No. 24-1203.

Judge: Per Curiam.

Attorneys: Seth Martin Nehrbass (Garvey, Smith & Nehrbass, Patent Attorneys, LLC) for Laurel Designs, LLC. Mary L. Kelly, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, for Coke Morgan Stewart.

Companies: Laurel Designs, LLC

Cases: Trademark FedCirNews USPTO