Summary
This Federal Circuit opinion reviews a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decision dismissing Sunkist Growers’ opposition to Intrastate Distributors’ applications to register the mark KIST for soft drinks. The appellate court found that substantial evidence did not support the Board’s conclusion that the marks had different commercial impressions or that there was no likelihood of confusion. Consequently, the court reversed the Board’s dismissal, holding that IDI’s KIST marks are likely to cause confusion with Sunkist’s registered SUNKIST marks.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the TTAB's finding that there is no likelihood of confusion between the SUNKIST and KIST marks is supported by substantial evidence.
Holdings
- The Court reverses the Board’s decision and holds that IDI’s KIST marks, when used on or in connection with the goods described in the applications, are likely to cause confusion with the registered SUNKIST mark.
Key quotations
““Likelihood of confusion is a question of law, based on findings of relevant underlying facts, namely findings under the DuPont factors.”” (at 1034)
““We therefore conclude that IDI’s KIST marks when used on or in connection with the goods described in IDI’s applications are likely to cause confusion with the registered SUNKIST mark.”” (at *9)
Factual background
Sunkist owns the SUNKIST trademark for fruits and beverages. Intrastate Distributors purchased the KIST brand and uses it for soft‑drink and sparkling‑water products. The parties dispute whether consumers are likely to be confused between the SUNKIST and KIST marks.
Procedural history
Sunkist appealed the TTAB's decision dismissing its opposition to Intrastate Distributors' applications to register the KIST mark for soft drinks.