Opposers CIVC and INAO contended that the designation CHAMPAGNE is protectable as a common law certification mark under U.S. law, and that under French law they are charged with the control, promotion, and protection of that mark. The Board therefore found that opposers had standing to pursue this opposition.
Applicant made only minimal efforts to defend himself. The Board found the involved goods to be legally identical because it presumed that applicant's goods, as identified, include sparkling wines identical to those certified by opposers. It therefore also presumed that the goods travel in the same channels of trade to the same classes of consumers.
As to the marks, however, the Board found it unlikely that "customers of average perceptual abilities would mistake one mark for the other or find the marks to be significantly similar" even if used for identical goods. The English word "party" is a salient feature of the applied-for mark. That portion of the mark is "likely to counteract the visual similarities between the two marks in the perception of consumers."
Moreover, the marks are not likely to give rise to phonetic confusion. Although there is no correct pronunciation of a coined mark like CHAMPARTY, consumers will likely give the latter portion of the mark the pronunciation of the common word "party." CHAMPAGNE is usually pronounced so that the latter portion rhymes with "pane," which has a sound not likely to be confused with "party." If the French pronunciation is given to CHAMPAGNE, it would have a sound nearly unique in the U.S. market. And if consumers see the common word "champ" in the applied-for mark, they would pronounce it quite differently that the first syllable of CHAMPAGNE.
As to meaning, CHAMPAGNE is a term well known as a type of sparkling wine. CHAMPARTY has no literal meaning. Opposer's suggested that CHAMPAGNE is often associated with celebrations and thus PARTY might suggest a connection with CHAMPAGNE, but the Board was unimpressed. There was no evidence that CHAMPAGNE is more closely connected with celebrations that any other alcoholic beverage.
The Board saw no support for opposers' argument that consumers would see CHAMPARTY as a sort of "brand extension" of the CHAMPAGNE mark, nor did it find any other reason why consumers might perceive a relationship or connection between the marks of the parties.
The Board concluded that applicant's mark "differs substantially from opposers' asserted certification mark, so as not to be likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception as to the source of applicant's goods."
Read comments and post your comments here.
TTABlog note: To me, CHAMPARTY suggests that applicant is selling some party drink that includes CHAMPAGNE. Maybe a punch or something. What do you think? But is that confusion as to source?
I also think that if someone is selling a sparkling wine called CHAMPARTY, the consumer would likely pronounce the CHAM part like CHAMPAGNE. Besides, there is no correct pronunciation of a trademark, is there?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2013.
Post a Comment