IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: FOUR CORNERS mark used with gin not likely to be confused with existing marks for beer, (Jan 8, 2025)

By Kevin M. Finson

The TTAB could not find that similar marks used with beer and gin were likely to cause confusion because the record was insufficient to show that beer and gin were related.

A seller of gin would be allowed to register its proposed mark FOUR CORNERS AMERICAN GIN and a logo despite some similarity with registered marks for beer, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has held. Contrary to the Examining Attorney’s finding, the record before the Board did not establish that consumers would perceive gin and beer as related goods (In re Cobblestone Brands Ltd., No. 97453097 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2024)).

Cobblestone Brands, Ltd. (Cobblestone) sought registration on the Principal Register of a composite mark consisting of the words FOUR CORNERS AMERICAN GIN and a logo consisting of two crossed lines and a star, with AMERICAN GIN disclaimed, for use with “gin” in International Class 33. The Examining Attorney refused registration based on a likelihood of confusion with two existing registrations, one for a composite mark with the words FOUR CORNERS and the image of a rooster for use with several varieties of beer and malt liquor in International Class 32 and one for the standard-character mark FOUR CORNERS for use with “beer” in International Class 32. Cobblestone appealed.

The Board considered the DuPont factors for which there was evidence of record.

Similarity of the marks. The Board found that the shared non-disclaimed words FOUR CORNERS, as opposed to the different design elements, were the dominant elements of the marks. Accordingly, the marks were more similar than dissimilar, and this factor weighed in favor of a likelihood of confusion.

Relatedness of the goods. The Examining Attorney provided three examples of beer and gin emanating from the same source. The Board held that this limited number of examples was not convincing. While acknowledging that other decisions had found different varieties of alcoholic beverage to be related, the Board noted that each case must be decided on its own merits. On the record in this case, beer and gin had not been shown to be related. This factor weighed against a likelihood of confusion.

Trade channels and conditions of purchase. Although both parties addressed these factors, the Board found the record lacked sufficient evidence for it to come to a conclusion on the overlap of trade channels or conditions of purchase, so these factors were treated as neutral.

Balancing the factors, the Board reversed the refusal to register.

The Case is Serial No. 97453097.

Judge: Stanley, L.

Attorneys: Keith A. Weltsch (Presser, P.C.) for Cobblestone Brands Ltd. Mark Hill for the USPTO.

Companies: Cobblestone Brands Ltd.

Cases: Trademark USPTO