IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Beverage company can't register ‘Campanario’ trademark due to existing English equivalent, (Sep 12, 2025)

By Steven Melendez

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed a refusal to register the mark, given an existing "Bell Tower" mark, which matches its English translation.

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) affirmed an examining attorney's refusal to register the mark CAMPANARIO, Spanish for "BELL TOWER," for alcoholic beverages, except beer, on the ground of likelihood of confusion with the existing "BELL TOWER" mark covering beer (In re Compañía Pisquera de Chile S.A., No. 98448743 (T.T.A.B. Sept. 10, 2025)).

Compañía Pisquera de Chile S.A had sought to register the mark for “aguardiente; schnapps; alcoholic beverages, except beer; brandy; schnapps; alcoholic cocktails" and indicated in its application that the English translation of the mark is "BELL TOWER." The examining attorney refused registration and denied a request for reconsideration, citing the likelihood of confusion with the existing mark.

The TTAB panel considered the usual factors from In re E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.

Similarity of the marks. Bell Tower and Campanario don't look or sound the same, the TTAB panel acknowledged, but "the issue is whether the terms are foreign equivalents and so have the same meaning and create a similar commercial impression."

It's long been determined under the doctrine of foreign equivalents that terms from other languages can be denied registration if the English equivalent is already registered for products that could be assumed to be from the same source. A major consideration, according to the ruling, is whether a consumer would translate the foreign term into English. Under the doctrine of foreign equivalents, the burden is generally on the trademark applicant to show that consumers won't translate the term, according to the ruling.

The examining attorney provided evidence that Spanish is widely spoken in the United States, indicating a sizable number of consumers would be capable of making the translation.

"We find the record establishes that the Spanish language is spoken or understood by an appreciable number of U.S. consumers who also speak or understand English," according to the ruling. "This weighs heavily in favor of applying the doctrine of foreign equivalents.

And multiple dictionaries indicate that "bell tower" is the direct, literal translation of "campanario," according to the ruling.

The beverage company argued that Spanish-language terms, "particularly in the alcoholic beverage space," aren't usually translated by consumers, pointing to brand names like Corona, Don Julio Blanco, Dos Equis, and Patron. But, the TTAB panel found, the company hadn't provided any evidence to support its argument that bilingual consumers aren't in fact translating these names.

This factor, the panel found, weighs in favor of likelihood of confusion.

Similarity of the goods and trade channels. The beverage company argued that its products differ from the beer covered by the existing BELL TOWER mark. Beer is brewed while spirits are distilled, they're made from different ingredients, they contain different levels of alcohol, and they're consumed in different ways and in different quantities, the company argued.

But the issue, according to the ruling, isn't whether consumers would confuse the goods themselves but the source of the goods. The examining attorney provided evidence of numerous vendors offering both beer and other alcoholic beverages, which the panel agreed shows that the goods are related, since consumers could find the same entity offering both classes of beverage "under the same mark."

The beverage company argued that beer and spirits are typically sold through different channels, and when sold by the same vendors kept in different parts of a store or listed on different parts of an online or physical menu. But, the TTAB panel found, the company didn't cite anything in the record to support that contention, and the examining attorney provided numerous examples of trade channels selling both beer and other alcoholic beverages.

These factors, therefore, also weigh in favor of confusion, according to the ruling.

Other DuPont factors were deemed neutral, meaning the factors on balance weigh toward confusion, according to the ruling.

The Case is Serial No. 98448743.

Judge: Dunn, E.

Attorneys: Roman Campos (Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, PC) for Compañía Pisquera de Chile S.A. Brian J. Collis for the USPTO.

Companies: Compañía Pisquera de Chile S.A.

Cases: Trademark USPTO