IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Opposition to MAYELA trademark application for wine sustained, (Aug 14, 2025)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

The TTAB cites the marks’ similarity in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression, as well as the similar channels of trade and customers as favoring likelihood of confusion finding.

In a nonprecedential decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) sustained the opposition to registration on the ground of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act with the opposer’s registered mark MAYA. The TTAB determined that the parties’ goods were identical and the parties’ wines were offered in the same trade channels to the same classes of consumers. Additionally, no DuPont factor weighed against a likelihood of confusion (Oakville Hills Cellar, Inc. v. Peninsula Vinicultores, S.L., No. 91287178 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 2025)).

Background. The applicant, Peninsula Vinicultores, S.L. sought registration on the Principal Register of the mark MAYELA in standard characters for goods identified as “wines” in International Class 33. Oakville Hills Cellar, Inc. dba Dalla Valle Vineyards (opposer) opposed the registration of the applicant’s mark under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, asserting priority and likelihood of confusion based on the opposer’s previously used and registered standard character mark MAYA for “wine” in International Class 33.

Likelihood of confusion. The TTAB, upon considering the DuPont factors for evaluating a likelihood of confusion, found that confusion was likely.

Similar goods, channels, purchasers. The TTAB noted that the goods identified in the Registration are “wine,” and the goods identified in the Application are “wines.” Thus, the goods are identical, with the second DuPont factor weighing heavily in favor of likelihood of confusion. Further, neither party’s application nor registration indicates limitations as to the nature, type, or channels of trade, or classes of purchasers, so the identified goods are presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same purchasers. So, the third DuPont factor weighed in favor of a conclusion that confusion is likely. The identified goods are unrestricted as to quality or price, so under the fourth DuPont factor, purchaser sophistication may tend to minimize likelihood of confusion. However, impulse purchases of inexpensive items may tend to have the opposite effect. Therefore, considering the perspective of the least sophisticated potential purchaser, who may buy wine on impulse, the fourth DuPont factor weighed in favor of likelihood of confusion.

Strength. In determining the strength of the mark, the TTAB noted as an arbitrary mark for wine, MAYA is conceptually strong, and the applicant has not adduced evidence of third-party registrations that would weaken its conceptual strength. Further, as for commercial strength, the opposer’s evidence reflects some recognition among wine critics, which itself has been publicized, but it is unclear whether or how much that recognition extends to the general wine purchasing public. The TTAB also noted that the applicant has not shown commercial weakness of the MAYA mark. Considering all of the evidence made of record relating to the fifth and sixth DuPont factors, the TTAB concluded that opposer’s MAYA mark falls slightly above the middle of the spectrum of both conceptual and commercial strength, but not so high that strength plays a dominant role in the likelihood of confusion analysis.

Similar marks. The TTAB noted that the MAYA and MAYELA marks are not identical, as MAYELA has the additional letters “EL” after the “MAY” and before the “A,” and the marks do not have the same number of letters or syllables or identical pronunciations. But in both MAYA and MAYELA the “A” and “ELA” sounds are likely to be perceived as trailing softly from the “MAY-” portion and do little to distinguish the marks visually or phonetically. Further, both parties agreed that MAYA is likely to be perceived as a popular personal name. The TTAB also found that there is evidence that MAYA is recognized as a female name, and the evidence also shows that it refers to a language, culture and people, and it remains arbitrary for wine. Additionally, although consumers are likely to find the term MAYA to be somewhat familiar, it is not readily distinguishable in meaning or commercial impression from MAYELA. Thus, the marks MAYA and MAYELA are similar in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression, with the first DuPont factor weighing in favor of likelihood of confusion.

Actual confusion. The TTAB found this factor to be neutral. There was no evidence of actual confusion. The applicant also stated that it is not aware of any instances of actual confusion between the parties or their marks, nor did the opposer present any evidence of actual confusion.

Balancing the factors, the TTAB found that confusion is likely between the applicant’s and the opposer’s marks. Accordingly, the opposition was sustained on the ground of likelihood of confusion.

The Case is Opposition No. 91287178.

Judge: O’Connor, C.

Attorneys: J. Scott Gerien (Dickenson, Peatman & Fogarty) for Oakville Hills Cellar, Inc. d/b/a Dalla Valle Vineyards. Benjamin C. Armitage (Billion & Armitage) for Peninsula Vinicultores, S.L.

Companies: Oakville Hills Cellar, Inc. d/b/a Dalla Valle Vineyards; Peninsula Vinicultores, S.L.

Cases: Trademark USPTO