## Facts

- Spirits International sought to register MOSKOVSKAYA for vodka based on an intent-to-use application.
- The application stated the vodka would not be manufactured, produced, or sold in Moscow and would have no other connection with Moscow.
- The USPTO refused registration as “primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive” under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(3).
- Applying the doctrine of foreign equivalents, the USPTO treated MOSKOVSKAYA (Russian) as meaning “of or from Moscow.”
- The USPTO found Moscow to be a generally known place and inferred a goods/place association between vodka and Moscow (and Russia), asserting that Russian vodka is highly regarded.
- Spirits submitted consumer-survey evidence to argue purchasers would not take the term as a deceptive geographic indication.
- The TTAB affirmed the refusal, applying a three-part test that included a “material factor” requirement and concluding Moscow’s reputation for vodka made the misdescription material to purchasing decisions.

## Issues

1. What is the correct legal standard for “materiality” under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(3) after In re California Innovations, Inc.?
2. Did the TTAB misapply materiality by treating Moscow’s reputation for vodka as sufficient to show that the geographic misdescription would significantly influence purchasing decisions?

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit vacated the TTAB’s decision and remanded.
- The court held the TTAB applied an incorrect test for materiality under § 2(e)(3).
- The court concluded the Board’s materiality finding was inadequately supported under the correct standard.
- The court indicated that survey and other record evidence should be reconsidered on remand under the proper materiality framework.

## Legal Principles

- A mark is unregistrable as “primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive” under § 2(e)(3) only if the geographic misdescription is material to consumer purchasing decisions.
- Materiality requires more than showing the place named is known for the product; the PTO must show the false geographic belief is likely to be a significant factor for a significant portion of relevant consumers.
- Concluding “place is reputed for high-quality goods” does not, without supporting evidence tied to consumer decision-making, establish material deception.
- The doctrine of foreign equivalents may be used to determine the geographic significance of a non-English term, but that determination does not substitute for the separate materiality analysis required by § 2(e)(3).

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit required an evidence-based showing that a false geographic indication would significantly affect the purchasing decisions of a significant portion of consumers, and vacated the TTAB’s refusal because the Board effectively equated a place’s general reputation with material consumer deception.


In re Spirits Int’l, N.V., 563 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009)