Decisions · 86928469
In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC
Serial No. 86928469 · Decided 2018-04-02 · Section 2(d) Ex Parte Appeal
What happened
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 though the two wines come from different wine regions in France.
The marks
Applicant
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)
"Wine of French origin protected by the appellation of the origin Cité de Carcassonne" in International Class 33
Cited registration
CHATEAU LAROQUE
"Wines having the controlled appellation Saint-Emilion Grand Cru" in International Class 33
How the marks compared
| Dimension | Finding | What the Board said |
|---|---|---|
| sound | Somewhat Similar | Partly similar in sound; both marks share the dominant term LAROQUE, but Applicant’s mark includes additional wording CITÉ DE CARCASSONNE. |
| appearance | Similar | More similar than dissimilar in appearance; LAROQUE is the largest, boldest, first term in Applicant’s mark, and the disclaimed CHATEAU and Cité de Carcassonne wording are entitled to less weight. |
| meaning | Similar | Applicant’s house/vineyard design corresponds to and reinforces the descriptive word CHATEAU (a French country house associated with wine) in the cited mark, rather than distinguishing the marks. |
| commercial impression | Similar | The marks convey similar connotations and commercial impressions given the shared dominant term LAROQUE and the design’s correspondence to CHATEAU. |
Similar overall, driven by the shared dominant term LAROQUE and the design’s reinforcement of the cited mark’s disclaimed CHATEAU wording.
du Pont factors that bore on the outcome
| # | Factor | Weight | What the Board found |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Similarity of the marks | Dispositive — Favored Refusal | LAROQUE dominates the applied-for label and the marks are partly similar in sound, more similar than dissimilar in appearance, and similar in connotation. |
| 2 | Relatedness of the goods or services | Dispositive — Favored Refusal | Both identifications are French wine, and the appellation limitations do not distinguish the goods. |
| 4 | Conditions of sale and buyer sophistication | Neutral | The identifications include moderately priced wine bought with ordinary care. |
Why this decision is significant
Precedential decision establishing a new rule for comparing standard-character marks to word+design marks (variations limited to font/size/color, but the opposing design is still weighed for connotation), with a notable concurrence questioning that rule’s necessity.
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 mark identical to the registered BLACK SWAN mark for wines, and because vodka and wine are related drinks sold through overlapping channels…
79375327 · 2026-01-07 · BLACK SWAN v. BLACK SWAN
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)
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 — Generated from database rows without re-reading the opinion.
General information about how trademark law works. It is not legal advice about your situation, and reading it does not make anyone your lawyer.