IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: ‘GOLD PALM’ mark for wine succumbs to ‘SILVER PALM’ mark owner’s opposition challenge, (Feb 3, 2026)

By Ravindra Kumar Singh, B.L.

TTAB found confusion likely due to overlapping trade channels, shared consumers, and visual similarities likely to mislead wine buyers.

In a non-precedential decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) sustained an opposition filed by Jackson Family Farms, LLC, blocking registration of the mark GOLD PALM for wine and wine-based beverages. The Board found that the applied-for mark was likely to cause confusion with Jackson’s earlier-registered SILVER PALM mark. Applying the DuPont likelihood of confusion factors, the Board concluded that the parties’ goods were legally identical, traveled through identical trade channels to the same classes of purchasers, and that the marks, despite a difference in initial terms, shared the same dominant word and a similar commercial impression (Jackson Family Farms, LLC v. Fairweather, No. 91291000 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2026)).

Background. Dylan Fairweather applied to register the standard character mark GOLD PALM on the Principal Register for “alcoholic beverages containing wine; aperitifs with a wine base; low alcohol wine; wine-based beverages; wine; wines and liqueurs; wines and sparkling wines” in International Class 33. The application, filed on May 19, 2023, was based on a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce under Section 1(b) of the Trademark Act. Jackson Family Farms, LLC, opposed the application under Section 2(d), asserting a likelihood of confusion with its earlier registrations for the mark SILVER PALM, registered in standard character form for “wine” and “alcoholic beverages except beers,” also in Class 33.

Statutory cause of action. The Board found that Jackson had established its entitlement to a statutory cause of action based on its ownership of two valid and subsisting registrations for the SILVER PALM mark. The submission of copies of the registration certificates showing current status and title confirmed its standing to oppose the application under Section 13 of the Trademark Act. The Board noted that Fairweather did not dispute Jackson’s entitlement to oppose.

Priority. Because Jackson’s registrations were of record and had not been counterclaimed for cancellation, the Board found that priority was not at issue. Citing King Candy Co. v. Eunice King’s Kitchen, Inc., 496 F.2d 1400 (C.C.P.A. 1974), the Board held that a valid registration is sufficient to establish prior rights in a Section 2(d) proceeding.

Board’s analysis. In its likelihood-of-confusion analysis, the Board, as always, applied the factors set forth in In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973).

Relatedness of goods and trade channels. The Board found that the parties’ goods were legally identical. Jackson’s earlier registration for “wine” overlapped with Fairweather’s application, which also identified “wine” and various wine-based beverages. Because neither party limited the channels of trade or classes of consumers in the application or registrations, the Board presumed the goods would move through the same channels and reach the same types of purchasers. Thus, the Board held that these factors weighed heavily in favor of a likelihood of confusion.

Similarity of the marks. The Board found GOLD PALM and SILVER PALM to be similar in appearance, sound, structure, and commercial impression. While the marks differed in the initial terms (“gold” vs. “silver”), both shared the identical noun “palm,” and followed a common “[color/metal] + noun” construction. The Board agreed with Jackson’s argument that consumers may perceive GOLD PALM as a premium variant of SILVER PALM, consistent with quality-tiering conventions in the wine industry. Jackson submitted extensive evidence of the gold-silver-bronze hierarchy in wine competitions, and the Board found that this contributed to consumer perception of the marks as related. The similarity of the marks, particularly given their shared structure and context, weighed in favor of finding confusion.

Strength of the opposer’s mark. The Board found that SILVER PALM was inherently distinctive, having been registered without a Section 2(f) claim. Although Jackson had not proven fame, it demonstrated moderate commercial strength. The record showed that Jackson’s licensee had sold SILVER PALM wine nationwide since 2007 through numerous distributors and well-known retail outlets. The Board noted that, while the sales data was redacted, the mark had achieved meaningful commercial success, albeit not to the point of becoming famous. Thus, the fifth DuPont factor (fame) was considered neutral.

Third-party use and weakness. Fairweather submitted third-party registrations and examples of “palm”-formative marks, along with evidence of “[color]+[object]” naming conventions in the wine industry. However, the Board found only ten third-party registrations that were arguably relevant, and many used “palm” in unrelated or highly stylized contexts. Several registrations cited were cancelled or issued under Section 66(a) without use in commerce. Thus, the Board concluded the record did not support a finding of conceptual or commercial weakness.

Branding convention argument. Fairweather argued that the use of “[color]+object]” names was common in the wine industry, and submitted over eighty registrations and website screenshots to support this claim. The Board found that none of the examples featured the term “PALM,” and held that the argument failed to address the specific similarity of GOLD PALM to SILVER PALM. The Board rejected the “branding convention” theory as unsupported by law or relevant evidence.

Purchasing conditions. The Board held that the goods were likely to be purchased by ordinary consumers, including those making impulse purchases. While wine can range in price, the Board noted that both parties’ products were moderately priced ($14.99 and $19 per bottle, respectively). In light of the lack of any trade or price limitations in the applications, the Board found that the purchasing conditions increased the potential for confusion.

Lack of actual confusion. Fairweather argued that there had been no reported instances of actual confusion despite marketing GOLD PALM in multiple U.S. states for two years. The Board rejected this argument. However, the Board noted that the absence of actual confusion is not probative where there has been only a limited opportunity for confusion, and found the coexistence period too brief and undefined to draw any meaningful inference.

Other factors. The Board found no evidence of bad-faith adoption by Fairweather, but reiterated that good faith does not negate confusion. It also noted that the variety-of-goods factor was irrelevant given the identical nature of the goods, and that the parties’ respective business scopes had no bearing on the analysis.

Conclusion. Finally, the Board concluded that multiple DuPont factors weighed in favor of a likelihood of confusion, particularly the identity of the goods, overlapping trade channels, and the similarity in mark structure and commercial impression. The Board therefore sustained the opposition and refused registration of the GOLD PALM mark.

The Case is Opposition No. 91291000.

Attorneys: J. Scott Gerien (Dickenson, Peatman & Fogarty PC) for Jackson Family Farms, LLC. Ian K. Boyd (Sideman & Bancroft LLP) for Dylan Fairweather.

Companies: Jackson Family Farms, LLC

Cases: Trademark USPTO