IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: ‘COGNAC LIFE’ mark for magazine publishing succumbs to opposition challenge from French Cognac authorities, (Mar 5, 2026)

By Ravindra Kumar Singh, B.L.

COGNAC LIFE for magazine publishing services found likely to cause confusion with the famous COGNAC geographic certification mark for brandy.

In a non-precedential decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) sustained an opposition filed by Institut National de l’Origine et de la Qualité (INAO) and Bureau National Interprofessionnel du Cognac (BNIC) against the registration of the mark COGNAC LIFE. The Board held that the applicant’s proposed mark for magazine publishing services would likely cause confusion with the famous geographic certification mark COGNAC, which identifies brandy produced in the Cognac region of France under strict production standards. Because the opposers proved priority and likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act, the Board sustained the opposition and refused registration of the COGNAC LIFE mark (Institut National de l’Origine et de la Qualité v. Dickens, No. 91272506 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2026)).

Background. The applicant, Daret K. Dickens, applied to register the standard-character mark COGNAC LIFE on October 27, 2020, on an intent-to-use basis. The application sought registration on the Principal Register for “magazine publishing” services in International Class 41. The opposers, INAO and BNIC, are responsible for administering and protecting the COGNAC appellation of origin, which certifies that brandy bearing the name Cognac originates from the Cognac region of France and complies with prescribed production methods.

INAO is a French administrative authority responsible for establishing and protecting France’s appellations of origin system. BNIC functions as the interprofessional organization representing growers, producers, and merchants of Cognac brandy and oversees certification and export controls. The opposers filed a notice of opposition asserting that registration of COGNAC LIFE would create a likelihood of confusion with their certification mark COGNAC and would dilute the mark through blurring. Although the opposition also originally included claims for lack of bona fide intent to use and false suggestion of a connection, those claims were deemed waived because they were not pursued in the briefing.

Statutory cause of action. The Board found that both INAO and BNIC established entitlement to bring the opposition proceeding. The evidence demonstrated that these organizations are responsible for monitoring the production and marketing of Cognac brandy and protecting the COGNAC appellation worldwide. As entities charged with safeguarding the integrity of the geographic designation, they possessed a real interest in the outcome of the proceeding and a reasonable belief of damage if the mark were registered.

Priority. The opposers relied on common law rights in the COGNAC certification mark rather than federal registration. The Board concluded that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated long-standing use of the mark well before the applicant’s October 27, 2020, filing date. Cognac brandy has been exported to the United States since the eighteenth century and has enjoyed decades of widespread commercial recognition. Based on this historical evidence and the substantial sales and promotion of Cognac products in the United States, the Board held that the opposers had established priority in the COGNAC certification mark.

Likelihood of confusion. The Board analyzed the dispute under the familiar likelihood-of-confusion factors established in In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973).

Strength of opposers’ mark. The Board determined that COGNAC is a highly distinctive and commercially strong geographic certification mark. Evidence showed that Cognac brandy has been sold in the United States for more than two centuries and that millions of bottles are imported annually, generating billions of dollars in sales. Advertising campaigns, promotional activities, and extensive media coverage have reinforced public recognition of the mark as identifying brandy originating from the Cognac region of France.

The Board emphasized that the fame of a mark plays a dominant role in the likelihood-of-confusion analysis. Citing Palm Bay Imports, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2005), it explained that famous marks enjoy broader protection because consumers readily associate them with a particular source or certification. Based on the record, the Board concluded that the COGNAC certification mark falls on the high end of the fame spectrum as an indicator of geographic origin.

Similarity of the marks. The Board found that the applicant’s COGNAC LIFE mark closely resembled the opposers’ COGNAC mark. The dominant element in the applicant’s mark was the word “COGNAC,” which appeared as the first term and was identical to the opposers’ certification mark.

Although the mark added the term “LIFE,” the Board concluded that this addition did little to distinguish the marks. Instead, it reinforced the lifestyle associations connected with Cognac brandy and emphasized the same commercial impression. The Board therefore concluded that the marks were similar in appearance, sound, meaning, and overall commercial impression.

Relatedness of goods and services. The Board next considered whether the parties’ goods and services were sufficiently related to create confusion. Authorized producers use the opposers’ certification mark for brandy originating from the Cognac region of France, whereas the applicant sought registration for magazine publishing services.

Although these goods and services were not directly competitive, the Board found that they were commercially related under the circumstances. The record showed that Cognac products are frequently featured in magazines and other lifestyle publications. Moreover, BNIC itself publishes a digital magazine dedicated to Cognac culture and promotion.

These circumstances led the Board to conclude that consumers encountering the COGNAC LIFE mark for magazine publishing services could reasonably believe that the services were sponsored or authorized by the organizations responsible for the Cognac certification mark. The Board emphasized that trademark law protects against confusion not only as to the source of goods but also as to sponsorship or affiliation.

Trade channels and consumer sophistication. The Board found that the record contained limited evidence regarding the trade channels or purchasers specifically associated with magazine publishing services. Because the application covered publishing services rather than magazines themselves, the Board determined that the evidence did not establish overlapping trade channels or consumer groups. Accordingly, these factors were considered neutral.

Absence of actual confusion. The applicant argued that no instances of actual confusion had occurred despite the availability of his magazine. The Board gave little weight to this argument. It explained that the absence of actual confusion is not dispositive when the record does not demonstrate a meaningful opportunity for confusion to occur.

Conclusion. After weighing the relevant DuPont factors, the Board concluded that the fame of the COGNAC certification mark, the similarity of the marks, and the commercial relationship between the parties’ goods and services strongly favored a finding of likelihood of confusion. As a result, the TTAB sustained the opposition and refused registration of the COGNAC LIFE mark. Because the likelihood-of-confusion finding was sufficient to resolve the dispute, the Board declined to address the opposers’ dilution claim.

The Case is Opposition No. 91272506.

Judge: English, C.

Attorneys: J. Scott Gerien (Dickenson Peatman & Fogarty APLC) for Institut National de L’Origine et de la Qualité and Bureau National Interprofessionnel du Cognac. Todd Wengrovsky (Law Offices of Todd Wengrovsky PLLC) for Daret K. Dickens.

Companies: Institut National de L’Origine et de la Qualité Bureau National Interprofessionnel du Cognac

Cases: Trademark USPTO