Here we go again. The Board sustained an opposition to registration of the marks BEAR CREEK DISTILLERY, in standard character and design form, for ‘Spirits; Spirits and liqueurs; Distilled spirits,’ finding a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark BEAR CREEK for ‘wines.’ Third-party registrations and Internet webpages convinced the Board that consumers are accustomed to seeing distilled spirits and wine emanating from the same source. In re Bear Creek Distillery, LLLP, Serial Nos. 87026602 and 87026770 (May 1, 2018) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cindy B. Greenbaum).

Applicant pointed to four third-party uses of BEAR CREEK in connection with wine or wine-related services, but this small number of uses was insufficient to support a finding that consumers would distinguish among marks containing “Bear Creek” based on minor distinctions.

Applicant also pointed to its own Internet evidence of 79 wineries that do not produce spirits, but the Board was unimpressed:

There is no requirement for goods to be found related that all or even a majority of the sources of one product must also be sources of the other product. Therefore, evidence showing only that the source of one product may not be the source of another product does not aid applicant in its attempt to rebut the evidence of the examining attorney.

And so the Board affirmed the refusal to register.