IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Refusal to register HORSETHIEF CANYON VINEYARDS mark affirmed due to likelihood of confusion with existing mark HORSE THIEF HOLLOW, (May 20, 2026)

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

Applicant’s mark HORSETHIEF CANYON VINEYARDS and the registered mark HORSE THIEF HOLLOW share the initial, dominant portion HORSE THIEF.

In a non-precedential decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) affirmed an examining attorney’s refusal to register the applicant’s mark HORSETHIEF CANYON VINEYARDS (VINEYARDS disclaimed) for wine under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act finding a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark HORSE THIEF HOLLOW for beer and beverages. The TTAB determined that confusion was likely because the marks HORSETHIEF CANYON VINEYARDS and HORSE THIEF HOLLOW are very similar due to their dominant initial terms and additional words with similar topographical significance (In re HC Vineyards LLC, No. 98579854 (T.T.A.B. May 4, 2026)).

Background. HC Vineyards LLC (applicant) sought to register the standard-character mark HORSETHIEF CANYON VINEYARDS (VINEYARDS disclaimed) on the Supplemental Register for “wine,” in International Class 33. The examining attorney refused registration of the applicant’s mark under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act due to a likelihood of confusion with the mark HORSE THIEF HOLLOW, also in standard characters, registered on the Principal Register for “Beer,” in International Class 32 and “Fast casual restaurants featuring sandwiches and beverages; Providing food and beverages; Restaurant and bar services; Restaurant and bar services, including restaurant carryout services; Restaurant services featuring sandwiches; Restaurant services, including sit-down service of food and take-out restaurant services; Restaurant services, namely, providing of food and beverages for consumption on and off the premises; Taproom services featuring Beer Brewed on Premises; Taproom services featuring Beer Cocktails; Taproom services featuring Craft Beer; Providing food and drink in restaurants and bars; Providing information in the field of recipes for alcoholic beverages and cocktails via a website; Providing information in the field of recipes via a website,” in International Class 43. The applicant appealed the refusal to register to the TTAB.

Likelihood of confusion. The TTAB, upon considering the DuPont factors for evaluating likelihood of confusion, agreed with the examining attorney that the applicant’s mark was likely to cause confusion with the registered mark.

Under the first DuPont factor, the TTAB found that although both the marks have some different words, visually and phonetically, HORSETHIEF CANYON VINEYARDS and HORSE THIEF HOLLOW are similar due to the nearly identical first word(s) HORSETHIEF and HORSE THIEF. The identity of the marks’ initial words “is particularly significant because consumers typically notice those words first.” Further, the absence of a space between HORSE and THIEF in the applicant’s mark does not detract from the marks’ similarity because the terms remain very similar in appearance and identical in sound. Additionally, the marks HORSETHIEF CANYON VINEYARDS and HORSE THIEF HOLLOW overall are very similar due to their nearly identical initial, dominant terms and second terms having similar topographical significance. The TTAB also found that the generic word VINEYARDS has less commercial import and does not render the marks dissimilar. Therefore, the first DuPont factor weighed strongly in favor of a conclusion that confusion is likely.

Under the second DuPont factor, the examining attorney provided a number of third-party registrations (20 in total) for the same mark covering both wine and beer in support of relatedness of wine and beer. These registrations that cover goods identified in both the application and the registered mark are relevant to show that the goods are of a type that may emanate from a single source under one mark. The applicant sought to diminish the marketplace evidence provided by the examining attorney as reflecting “isolated or destination-based business models rather than the ordinary manner in which wine and beer are encountered in commerce,” without supporting evidence.

However, the TTAB found that the evidence of record, screenshots from the websites of 16 third parties offering both wine and beer under the same mark or variations of the same mark, supported a finding that consumers encounter wine and beer offered by the same parties, under the same or similar marks, and that the goods are related. Thus, the second DuPont factor also supported a conclusion that confusion is likely.

Next, under the third DuPont factor, because there are no limitations in the identifications in either the application or the registered mark, the TTAB presumed that the applicant’s identified “wine” and the registrant’s “beer” travel through all usual trade channels and are offered and sold to all of the usual purchasers of such goods. Further, the third-party website evidence showed that the goods of both the applicant and the registrant are offered in at least one common channel of trade, combination wineries and breweries. Therefore, the third DuPont factor supported a likelihood of confusion.

The TTAB noted the least sophisticated purchasers of beer and wine are unlikely to be particularly discerning or exercise a high degree of care in making their purchase decisions. Moreover, even if some consumers of the goods are more sophisticated or discerning than others, even “careful or sophisticated consumers are not immune from source confusion.” Therefore, the fourth DuPont factor is neutral.

The TTAB also found the eighth, tenth, twelfth and thirteenth DuPont factors to be neutral. Balancing the DuPont factors, the TTAB concluded that no factor weighed against likelihood of confusion and determined that confusion is likely between the applicant’s mark and the registered mark when used with their respective identified goods.

Accordingly, the refusal to register the applicant’s mark was affirmed.

The Case is Serial No. 98579854.

Judge: NA.

Attorneys: Del Hanson (Del Hanson, Attorney at Law) for HC Vineyards LLC. Lisa McCrary for the USPTO.

Companies: HC Vineyards LLC

Cases: Trademark USPTO