Decisions · 79375327
In re Robert Sulic
Serial No. 79375327 · Decided 2026-01-07 · Section 2(d) Ex Parte Appeal
What happened
Refusal affirmed — the Board found Robert Sulic’s BLACK SWAN vodka mark identical to the registered BLACK SWAN mark for wines, and because vodka and wine are related drinks sold through overlapping channels, confusion is likely and the mark cannot register.
The marks
Applicant
BLACK SWAN
Vodka (Class 33)
Cited registration
BLACK SWAN
Wines (Class 33)
How the marks compared
| Dimension | Finding | What the Board said |
|---|---|---|
| sound | Similar | The word mark is identical to the registered mark. |
| appearance | Similar | Identical standard-character wording. |
| meaning | Similar | Identical arbitrary phrase for the goods. |
| commercial impression | Similar | Identical marks convey the same impression. |
Similar
du Pont factors that bore on the outcome
| # | Factor | Weight | What the Board found |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Similarity of the marks | Significant | BLACK SWAN is identical to the registered mark (word application) and the label version’s swan drawing only reinforces those dominant words. |
| 2 | Relatedness of the goods or services | Significant | Vodka and wine were found related: they mix together in cocktails, some vodka is distilled from wine, over a dozen producers sell both under one name, and 18 registrations cover both. |
| 3 | Similarity of trade channels | Significant | Producers' websites sell both products together, showing at least limited overlap in where consumers buy them. |
Why this decision is significant
Rich three-route template for proving (or attacking) relatedness of different alcoholic beverages — cocktail complementarity, same-source producers, and use-based third-party registrations — with the old White Rock vodka/wine no-relatedness holding distinguished as record-specific. Also a clean Herbko application: a design depicting the words reinforces rather than distinguishes.
Research significance is Trademark Valet's editorial rating of how useful a decision is to practitioners. It is not a statement of precedential weight — that is the separate Precedential field, which comes from the Board.
Related decisions
Refusal affirmed
In re Robert Sulic
The Board found Robert Sulic’s BLACK SWAN VODKA label (castle, mountains, and swan design) confusingly similar to the registered BLACK SWAN mark for wines; the swan picture just reinforces…
79375609 · 2026-01-07 · BLACK SWAN VODKA & design v. BLACK SWAN
In re Country Oven, Inc.
The Board affirmed refusal of the identical mark COUNTRY OVEN for retail and custom bakery services because a different company already owns a decades-old registration for COUNTRY OVEN…
87354443 · 2019-11-18 · COUNTRY OVEN v. COUNTRY OVEN
In re Inn at St. John's, LLC
The Board found 5IVE STEAKHOUSE (with a fork-and-knife design) for restaurant and bar services too similar to the registered mark 5IVESTEAK for identical services, and blocked the newer…
87075988 · 2018-06-06 · 5IVE STEAKHOUSE and design (the wording "5ive" in stylized letters, set above the design of an intersecting fork and knife, all set above the word "Steakhouse"; "Steakhouse" disclaimed) v. 5IVESTEAK and design (wording 5IVESTEAK presented in the colors red and brown, with red in the number "5" and letters "IVE" and brown in the letters "STEAK"; colors red and brown claimed as a feature of the mark)
In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC
The Board refused to register a French winery’s LAROQUE wine label showing a house and vineyard because it was too similar to an already-registered wine brand called CHATEAU LAROQUE, even…
86928469 · 2018-04-02 · LAROQUE Cité de Carcassonne and design (word mark with picture of a house behind a field of grape vines with trees bordering both sides of the image; "Cité de Carcassonne" disclaimed) v. CHATEAU LAROQUE
The original record
Read the opinion and every filing on the Board's own docket. The summary above is our paraphrase, not a quotation from the opinion. The opinion is the authority.
Who checked this
Not yet reviewed by an attorney. This summary is generated from coded data, and it says so until a lawyer has read it.
Provenance — Written from the opinion; tier never confirmed.
General information about how trademark law works. It is not legal advice about your situation, and reading it does not make anyone your lawyer.