LAIPLALAIPLA
LAIPLALAIPLA
  • About
    • About LAIPLA
    • Ambassador Outreach Program
    • Board of Directors
    • Committees
    • Administration
    • Member Firms and Companies
    • Past Presidents
    • Recent Past Presidents
    • Public Service Award
    • Diversity Fellowship
    • Bylaws
  • Events
  • Membership
  • Sponsorship
  • Contact
  • About
    • About LAIPLA
    • Ambassador Outreach Program
    • Board of Directors
    • Committees
    • Administration
    • Member Firms and Companies
    • Past Presidents
    • Recent Past Presidents
    • Public Service Award
    • Diversity Fellowship
    • Bylaws
  • Events
  • Membership
  • Sponsorship
  • Contact

PARATI Confusable With PYRAT For Spirits, Says TTAB

December 1, 2017December 4, 2017| in The TTABlog| by John L. Welch

In a brief 10-page opinion, the Board sustained an opposition to the mark PARATI for “alcoholic beverages, except beers; spirits,” finding the mark likely to cause confusion with the registered mark PYRAT for “distilled spirits.” The goods are in part identical, and presumably travel in the same, normal channels of trade to the same classes of consumers. The identifications of goods include inexpensive products bought with ordinary care. But what about the marks? Patron Spirits International AG v. Les Bienheureux, Opposition No. 91223657 (November 29, 2017) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Karen Kuhlke).

Of course, when the goods are identical, a lesser degree of similarity is needed between the marks to support a likelihood of confusion finding.

The Board found the marks to be similar in appearance and sound because they both begin with the the letter P, and the second syllable is RAT with only one letter separating P and RAT. “The difference in the vowel in the first syllable (Y or A) and the addition of the letter I at the end of Applicant’s mark are not sufficient to distinguish the marks.” The Board noted that in cases involving products that are ordered orally at a bar or restaurant, the sound of the marks is of heightened importance.

As to connotation, the Board found that a substantial number of consumers will simply take the marks as they are, without ascribing any meaning to them. Any recognition of the word “pirate” in opposer’s mark will not sufficiently distinguish the marks.

And so the Board found the marks similar in appearance, sound, meaning, and overall commercial impression.

The Board found opposer’s mark PYRAT to be conceptually strong, but there was no evidence to support opposer’s claim that it is commercially strong. Opposer’s allegation that applicant acted in bad faith also failed for lack of proof.

Balancing the relevant du Pont factors, the Board found confusion likely and it sustained the opposition.

IP Blog Categories

  • Announcements
  • Events
  • LAIPLA News
  • The TTABlog
  • Uncategorized
  • Wegner's Top 10
  • Wegner's Writings

Archives

Previous

TTAB Test: Are These Two Word + Design Marks Confusable for Beer?

Next

TTAB Posts December 2017 Hearing Schedule


Since 1934, LAIPLA has been educating and connecting members of the local intellectual property legal community

Pages

About 
Events
Membership
Sponsorship
Contact
Privacy Policy

Search
Contact

LAIPLA
1621 W 25th Street
Box 633
San Pedro, CA 90732
Phone: (323) 285-1654
Fax: ( 310) 878-0517
Email: office@laipla.net

© 2025 Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association. All Rights Reserved | Website design by Arclight Digital.