To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
MHCS brought an action at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
(TTAB) seeking to cancel Les Grand Chais de France’s registered
mark VEUVE OLIVIER for “sparkling wines,” arguing that it
creates a likelihood of confusion with, and dilutes, MHCS’s
VEUVE CLICQUOT mark for “champagne.” Although MHCS
asserted numerous registrations in its petition for cancellation,
all for champagne or sparkling wines—including VEUVE CLICQUOT
PONSARDIN, VEUVE CLICQUOT, LA VEUVE (“the widow” in
French), THE WIDOW, and LA VIUDA (“the widow” in
Spanish)—the TTAB focused on VEUVE CLICQUOT only. Given the
strength of MHCS’s mark, the overlap of VEUVE, and the legally
identical goods, the TTAB found that VEUVE OLIVIER creates a
likelihood of confusion with VEUVE CLICQUOT, and therefore granted
MHCS’s petition for cancellation. Having cancelled the
registration on likelihood of confusion grounds, the TTAB did not
reach MHCS’s dilution claim.
To prevail on a claim for likelihood of confusion, a petitioner
must first establish priority. MHCS’s VEUVE CLICQUOT
registration dates back to June 22, 1999 (when it filed the
application); Les Grand Chais de France didn’t file its VEUVE
OLIVIER application until January 16, 2015, and it submitted no
evidence that it had used the mark before then. The TTAB thus
easily concluded that MHCS had priority over the VEUVE OLIVIER
application based on its VEUVE CLICQUOT registration.
Turning to the DuPont factors, the TTAB first
considered the similarity of the parties’
goods—”champagne” for MHCS and “sparkling
wine” for Les Grand Chais de France. While not precisely the
same, the TTAB noted that champagne is a type of sparkling wine,
specifically, “[a] sparkling white wine made from a blend of
grapes, especially Chardonnay and Pinot, produced in
Champagne.” Because Les Grand Chais de France’s
identification of “sparkling wine” in its VEUVE OLIVIER
registration was unrestricted, the TTAB presumed it encompassed all
types of sparkling wine, including champagne. The TTAB thus
concluded the goods were legally identical. And having found the
goods legally identical, the TTAB also found that the channels of
trade and classes of purchasers were the same. These factors all
weighed heavily in favor of a likelihood of confusion.
Looking next to the strength of MHCS’s VEUVE CLICQUOT mark,
the TTAB considered both its conceptual strength (distinctiveness)
and its marketplace strength (secondary meaning or public
recognition as a mark). VEUVE CLICQUOT is registered without a
claim of acquired distinctiveness, so the TTAB presumed it to be
inherently distinctive. Further, it found that the term VEUVE,
which means “widow” in French, is arbitrary as applied to
champagne, thus making it conceptually strong. Although the TTAB
faulted MHCS for failing to identify how much of the total sales or
advertising amounts it presented were attributable to champagne
sold under the VEUVE CLICQUOT mark, the TTAB was nonetheless
persuaded by MHCS’s considerable evidence of commercial
strength, which included: the brand’s over 250-year history
(since its founding in 1772 by Barbe Clicquot, the original widow
at the company’s helm); its considerable sales of a wide array
of champagne products in the United States (with the VEUVE CLICQUOT
mark prominently displayed on the bottles, as shown in the examples
below) for almost 175 years; its extensive advertising both in
print and on the internet; and its high-profile events attracting
celebrities and press attention (such as the Veuve Clicquot Polo
Classic). The TTAB thus found the VEUVE CLICQUOT mark both
conceptually and commercially strong, weighing in favor of
likelihood of confusion.
Finally, as to the similarity of the marks themselves, the TTAB
found that—taken as a whole—VEUVE OLIVIER and VEUVE
CLICQUOT look and sound different and have two different meanings
if translated from French (“Widow Olivier” and
“Widow Clicquot”). But the inquiry didn’t end there.
The TTAB went on to find that, despite these differences, the word
VEUVE is identical in both marks, and because it is the first word
in both marks, it is the dominant term in each party’s mark.
Moreover, the TTAB found that an “appreciable number of
purchasers are unlikely to be aware that VEUVE means
‘widow’ and are unlikely to translate the marks into
English.” As a result, the TTAB found that the differences in
meaning between the marks would be lost on the purchasers and would
therefore not aid them in distinguishing the marks. In the words of
the TTAB “[t]hey will perceive only that the same
French-looking and French-sounding word, VEUVE, appears as the
first term in both marks.”
Having found that all of the DuPont factors weighed in
favor of a likelihood of confusion, the TTAB granted MHCS’s
petition to cancel Les Grands Chais de France’s VEUVE OLIVIER
registration.
The case is MHCS v. Les Grands Chais De France, No.
92075021 (TTAB Mar. 8, 2024).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Intellectual Property from United States
#Tale #Widows #Sparkling #Wine #TTAB #Cancels #VEUVE #OLIVIER #Registration #Likelihood #Confusion #VEUVE #CLICQUOT #Trademark
