N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ JACKSON FAMILY FARMS, LLC, Appellant

v.

GRANDS DOMAINES DU LITTORAL, Appellee

______________________

2023

- 1675

______________________ Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in No. 91274194.

______________________

Decided: December 5 , 2023

______________________

J. S COTT G ERIEN , Dickenson Peatman & Fogarty, Napa, CA, for appellant. Also represented by J OY L. D URAND

.

J EFFREY H. G REGER , Hauptman Ham, LLP, Alexandria, VA, for appellee.

______________________

Before D YK , T ARANTO , and C HEN , Circuit Judges

. P ER C URIAM

. Case: 23-1675 Document: 31 Page: 1 Filed: 12/05/2023JACKSON FAMILY FARMS , LLC v. GRANDS DOMAINES DU LITTORAL 2

Jackson Family Farms, LLC (“opposer”) appeals from a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) decision dismissing its opposition to a trademark application filed by Gran ds Domaines Du Littoral (“applicant”) . The Board determined that as a matter of law there is no likelihood of confusion between applicant’s mark and opposer’s mark. We affirm

. B ACKGROUND
Grands Domaines Du Littoral filed a trademark application ( No. 90184859) pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 10 5 1(a) to register the following mark :

The mark was sought to be registered for “wines made from grapes from Côtes de Provence in accordance with adapted standards” in International Class 33. J.A. 1.

Jackson Family Farm filed a notice of opposition

. It pleaded that it owned the registration for the “standard character mark V ÉRITÉ in connection with ‘alcoholic beverages except beers’ in International Class 33 and prior common law rights in the same ma rk for wine.” J.A. 2 (citation omitted)

. It opposed the registration on “the sole Case: 23-1675 Document: 31 Page: 2 Filed: 12/05/2023JACKSON FAMILY FARMS , LLC v. GRANDS DOMAINES DU LITTORAL 3

ground of likelihood of confusion” between applicant’s mark and opposer ’s mark. J.A. 2.
Applicant moved for judgment on the pleadings

, arguing there is no likelihood of confusion because the marks are not confusingly similar. The Board considered that applicant h ad conceded that the other D uPont factors of relatedness (articulated i n In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co. , 476 F.2d 1357, 1361 (C.C.P.A. 1973) ) favored opposerand analyzed whether “based on the single factor of dissimilarity of the marks, [o] pposer cannot prevail as a matter of law, even if all of the other [ DuPont ] factors weigh in favor of [o]pposer .” J.A. 4.

The Board considered that “the m arks share the identical term V ÉRITÉ.” J.A. 6. However, the Board determined that in opposer ’s mark this term stood alone

. I n applicant ’s mark it was part of a three

- word phrase — V ÉRITÉ DU T E RROIR

— and wa s just one of twenty

- two words in the applicant ’s mark. The Board concluded that CHAT E AU LA GORDONN E is the dominant part of applicant ’s mark because th ose words are displayed in a larger font and in a different color. The Board also noted that the additional “design elements of [a] pplicant’ s mark, in combination with the larger wording CHAT E AU LA GORDONN E , result [] in a mark which is ‘visually readily distinguishable from ’ [o] pposer’s mark.” J.A. 7 (citation omitted). Based on these determinations , t he Board concluded the re was “no genuine dispute of material fact that the marks at issue are distinct in appearance

, ” J.A. 6

, and this alone demonstrate d that “a likelihood of confusion cannot exist as a matter of law,” even when considering all other DuPont factors to weigh in the opposer ’s favor

, J.A. 8.
Opposer appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(B). Case: 23-1675 Document: 31 Page: 3 Filed: 12/05/2023JACKSON FAMILY FARMS , LLC v. GRANDS DOMAINES DU LITTORAL 4

D ISCUSSION “Likelihood of confusion is a question of law based on underlying factual findings regarding the DuPont factors.” Spire on, Inc. v. Flex Ltd. , 71 F.4th 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2023). We review the Board’s decision to dismiss the opposition as a matter of law de novo. Id.

I
Opposer first argues that the marks standing alone are not sufficiently dissimilar to show that there can be no likelihood of confusion as a matter of law

. “The first DuPontfactor requires consideration of ‘[t]he similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.’” In re I.AM.Symbolic, LLC , 866 F.3d 1315, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting DuPont , 476 F.2 d at 1361 ). “The proper test is not a side

- by

- side comparison of the marks, but instead ‘whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms oftheir commercial impression’ such that persons who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection b etween the parties.” Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC , 668 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Leading Jewelers Guild, Inc. v. L JOW Holdings, LLC , 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1901 , 1905 (T.T.A.B. 2007)).
Opposer argues that the Board erred in determi ning that the marks are dissimilar, or that there are at least material issues of fact as to the degree of their dissimilarity. Opposer contends that the marks are in fact similar because the “V ÉRITÉ mark appears as the first term of [a] pplicant’s three -w ord mark V ÉRITÉ DU T E RROIR” and V ÉRITÉ is therefore the dominant portion of applicant ’s mark. Appellant Br

. 13. Opposer further argues that sixteen of the twenty

- two words on the label have been disclaimed and are entitled to less weight in the likelihoo d of confusion analysis. We agree with the Board.
Opposer ’s focus on the word “ V ÉRITÉ” ignores other, more prominent portions of applicant ’s mark and does not Case: 23-1675 Document: 31 Page: 4 Filed: 12/05/2023JACKSON FAMILY FARMS , LLC v. GRANDS DOMAINES DU LITTORAL 5

consider applicant ’s mark as a whole

. The Board did not err in determining that CHAT E AU LA GORDONN E , not V ÉRITÉ, is the dominant part of applicant’s mark

. A s the Board explained, CHAT E AU LA GORDONN E is displayedin a larger font and different coloring relative to other elements of the label. Therefore, the Board did not err in attributing greater weight to the dominant CHAT E AU LA GORDONN E portion of applicant ’s mark when analyzing the similarities of the two marks

. Opposer argues that CHAT E AU LA GORDONN E is a house mark and V ÉRITÉ DU T E RROIR is “its own unitary composite product name ,” and that the presence of the CHAT E AU LA GORDONN E portion does not avoid confusion as a matter of law because both m arks contain the
term V ÉRITÉ

. Appellant Br. 1 5–16. In other words, consumers would perceive CHATEAU LA GORDONNE as a house mark and would ignore it in comparing the use of the
term V ÉRITÉ in the two marks. Even if this were the correct approach to the treatment of house marks, which we do not decide , there is no support for the notion that CHATEAU LA GORDONNE is a house mark that can be stripped out for likelihood of confusion purposes. The Board was correct to consider the presence of CHAT E AU LA G ORDONN E and the fact that it is the dominant portion of the mark.
Opposer also cites cases finding similarity between marks when one mark entirely encompasses the other. But those cases involved situations in which the only difference s between the marks was the addition of a few words to the dominant portion of the ma rk

, s ee, e.g. , Stone Lion Cap. Partners, L.P. v. Lion Cap. LLP , 746 F.3d 1317, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (comparing “STONE LION CAPITAL” to “LION CAPITAL”); In re Chatam Int ’ l Inc. , 380 F.3 d 1340, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ( finding likelihood of confusion between “JOS E GASPAR GOLD” and “GASPAR’S AL E ” because “GASPAR” and “GASPAR’S” were the dominant features of the two marks and the commercial impression of the additional words were discounted ), whereas here the Case: 23-1675 Document: 31 Page: 5 Filed: 12/05/2023JACKSON FAMILY FARMS , LLC v. GRANDS DOMAINES DU LITTORAL 6

difference in marks includes the addition of over twenty words

, some of which are more prominent ly displayed than V ÉRITÉ

. The Board’s conclusion that the marks are dissimilar was not erroneous

. Opposer final ly argues that disclaimed words in the mark should not be given consideration . While opposer iscorrect that those elements may receive less weight in considering the similarity of the marks, they cannot be ignored

, s ee In re Detroit Athletic Co. , 903 F.3 d 1297, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2018)

, and opposer concedes that GORDONN E was not disclaimed.

II
Opposer argues that the Board erred in not properly weighing all of the other DuPont factors against the dissimilarity of the marks , particularly the fame of opposer’s mark . We disagree.
There is nothing inherently improper about making alikelihood of confusion determination solely based on dissimilarity of the marks at the pleading stage

. See Ava Enters

. Inc. v. P.A.C. Trading Grp., Inc. , 86 U.S.P.Q.2d 1659 (T.T.A.B. 2008)

. “[O]ne DuPont factor may be dispositive in a likelihood of confusion analysis, especially when that single factor is the dissimilarity of the marks.” Champagne Louis Roederer, S.A. v. Delicato Vineyards , 148 F .3d 1373, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1998); 4 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 23:79 (5th ed. 2023) (“It is possible that the first [ DuPont ] factor, the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks themselves, may be dispositive of the issue.”)

. We agree with the Board’s conclusion that a likelihood of confusion between the marks could not exist as a matter of law , even when taking all of the other DuPont factors to weigh in favor of opposer.
AFFIRMED Case: 23-1675 Document: 31 Page: 6 Filed: 12/05/2023