## Facts

- Champagne Louis Roederer, S.A. owned federal trademark registrations for CRISTAL and CRISTAL CHAMPAGNE for champagne/wine products.
- Delicato Vineyards’ predecessor sought to register CRYSTAL CREEK for wine.
- Roederer opposed registration before the TTAB, alleging likelihood of confusion with its CRISTAL marks.
- The TTAB treated the goods as the same or closely related (wine, including champagne), presumed overlapping trade channels, and presumed similar purchasers.
- The evidentiary record was thin on many likelihood-of-confusion factors, but the TTAB evaluated the DuPont factors to the extent supported.
- The TTAB found the marks, considered in their entireties, sufficiently dissimilar in appearance, sound, meaning, and commercial impression; it dismissed the opposition.
- Roederer appealed, arguing the TTAB committed legal error by effectively treating mark dissimilarity as determinative despite other factors (including asserted strength/fame) favoring Roederer.

## Issues

1. Whether the TTAB erred in finding no likelihood of confusion between CRYSTAL CREEK and CRISTAL/CRISTAL CHAMPAGNE for wine under the DuPont factors.
2. Whether the TTAB committed legal error by giving dispositive weight to the dissimilarity of the marks where goods, channels of trade, and customers were presumed to overlap.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB’s dismissal of the opposition.
- The court held Roederer did not show legal error in the TTAB’s likelihood-of-confusion analysis or clear error in the TTAB’s underlying factual findings.
- The court agreed the TTAB could treat mark dissimilarity as dispositive on this record, even assuming overlap in goods, trade channels, and customers.

## Legal Principles

- Likelihood of confusion in TTAB opposition proceedings is assessed using the DuPont multi-factor test; the TTAB considers the factors to the extent the record permits.
- The TTAB is not required to give equal weight to every DuPont factor; one strongly probative factor may control the outcome.
- Dissimilarity in the marks’ overall commercial impressions (appearance, sound, meaning) can, in appropriate circumstances, preclude a reasonable likelihood of confusion even when goods and marketing channels overlap.
- On appeal, the Federal Circuit reviews the TTAB’s ultimate likelihood-of-confusion determination for correctness, while reviewing underlying factual findings for clear error.
- The opposer bears the burden to prove likelihood of confusion; a sparse evidentiary record on key factors may leave that burden unmet.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit upheld the TTAB’s determination that CRYSTAL CREEK for wine was not likely to cause confusion with Roederer’s CRISTAL marks, reasoning that the TTAB permissibly gave controlling weight to the marks’ overall dissimilarity on the record presented.


Champagne Louis Roederer, S.A. v. Delicato Vineyards, 148 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1998)