Baccarat S.A.v.Stefan H. Laux

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 8, 2019

91227407 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 8, 2019)

Mailed: November 8, 2019

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

Baccarat S.A.
v.
Stefan H. Laux
_____

Opposition No. 91227407
_____

Mark S. Leonardo of Brown Rudnick LLP for Baccarat S.A.

Christian W. Liedtke of Acuminis PC for Stefan H. Laux.
_____

Before Bergsman, Lykos and Heasley, Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Bergsman, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Stefan H. Laux (Applicant) seeks registration on the Principal Register for the
mark BACCARAT, in standard character form, for “alcoholic beverages, namely,
vodka,” in Class 33.1
Baccarat S.A. (Opposer) filed a Notice of Opposition against the registration of
Applicant’s mark on the grounds of likelihood of confusion, dilution, deceptiveness,

1 Application Serial No. 86639975 was filed on May 23, 2015, under Section 1(b) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), based on Applicant’s claim of a bona fide intent to use
the mark in commerce.
This Opinion Is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Opposition No. 91227407

- 2 -

and false suggestion of a connection. Sections 2(a), 2(d) and 43(c) of the Trademark
Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1052(a), 1052(d), and 1125(c). In its Notice of Opposition, Opposer
pleaded ownership of 20 BACCARAT registrations, including Registration No.
1144212 for BACCARAT, in typed drawing form, for “glass service comprising water,
wine, champagne and aperitif goblets and glasses, jugs and decanters, and glass
candelabra, in Class 21,2 and for BACCARAT (stylized), reproduced below, in the
following three registrations:

• Registration No. 1406761 for inter alia “crystal and glassware, namely, glasses,
bottles, containers, cups, decanters, and vases,” in Class 21;3
• Registration No. 1765572 for “jewelry, glasses, champagne buckets, and
carafes,” in Class 14;4 and

2 Registered December 23, 1980; second renewal.
Effective November 2, 2003, Trademark Rule 2.52, 37 C.F.R § 2.52, was amended to replace
the term “typed” drawing with “standard character” drawing. A typed mark is the legal
equivalent of a standard character mark. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 101 USPQ2d
1905, 1909 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“until 2003, ‘standard character’ marks formerly were known
as ‘typed’ marks.”).
3 Registered August 26, 1986; second renewal.
4 Registered April 20, 1993; second renewal.
Opposition No. 91227407

- 3 -

• Registration No. 1810807 for, inter alia, crystal, namely, jugs, candlesticks,
decanters, cups, pitchers, ice buckets, beverageware, goblets, wine glasses and
shotglasses, tea caddies, tea services, and teapots, in Class 21.5
Applicant, in his Answer, denied the salient allegations in the Notice of
Opposition. In addition, Applicant asserted eight “affirmative defenses.” Applicant’s
first affirmative defense (abandonment), fourth affirmative defense (“Opposer’s
alleged marks lack distinctiveness”), and fifth affirmative defense (“Opposer’s alleged
marks are descriptive and/or generic”) are attacks on the validity of Opposer’s
pleaded registrations, which may not be asserted unless Applicant files a
counterclaim to cancel Opposer’s pleaded registrations. See Trademark Rules
2.106(b)(3)(i) and (ii), 37 C.F.R. §§ 2.106(b)(3)(i) and (ii). Applicant did not file any
counterclaims to cancel Opposer’s pleaded registrations, so Applicant’s first, fourth,
and fifth affirmative defenses will not be heard. Applicant’s second affirmative
defense, bad faith, was not litigated. Applicant’s third and sixth affirmative defenses
are amplifications of his defense as to why there is no likelihood of confusion.
Applicant’s seventh affirmative defense, failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted is not an affirmative defense and it is not well taken.6
Applicant’s eighth affirmative defense, “Opposer’s claims are barred in whole or
in part by the doctrines of acquiescence, laches, estoppel and unclean hands,” is not

5 Registered December 14, 1993; second renewal.
6 Insofar as Applicant neither filed a formal motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6) during the pretrial phase of this proceeding, nor argued this defense in his main
brief, the defense is deemed waived. See Alcatraz Media Inc. v. Chesapeake Marine Tours
Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1750, 1752 n.6 (TTAB 2013), aff’d 565 Appx. 900 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Opposition No. 91227407

- 4 -

applicable in an opposition. Because laches begins to run when an applicant’s mark
is published for opposition, there is no undue delay. See Nat’l Cable Tele. Ass’n v. Am.
Cinema Editors, Inc., 937 F.2d 1572, 19 USPQ2d 1424, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (laches
begins to run from the time action could be taken against the acquisition by another
of a set of rights to which objection is later made); DAK Indus. Inc. v. Daiichi Kosho
Co. Ltd., 25 USPQ2d 1622, 1624 (TTAB 1992) (“in an opposition proceeding, laches
cannot begin to run until the mark is published for opposition.”).
Moreover, Applicant alleges that Opposer’s claims are barred by acquiescence,
laches, estoppel and unclean hands “because there already exist more than two-dozen
registrations for substantially similar or identical marks for the same or substantially
identical services” and Opposer has failed to take any action against them.7
Acquiescence, laches, estoppel and unclean hands are personal defenses, which may
not be asserted by a third party, such as applicant in this case, who lacks privity with
the entities entitled to assert the defenses. Calvin Klein Indus. Inc. v. Calvins Pharm.
Inc., 8 USPQ2d 1269, 1271 n.6 (TTAB 1988); The Procter & Gamble Co. v. Keystone
Auto. Warehouse, Inc., 191 USPQ 468, 474 (TTAB 1976); Plus Prods. v. General Mills,
Inc., 188 USPQ 520, 522 (TTAB 1975).
I. The Record
The record includes the pleadings and, by operation of Trademark Rule 2.122(b),
37 C.R.F. § 2.122(b), Applicant’s application file. The record also includes the
testimony and evidence introduced by the parties listed below:

7 4 TTABVUE 19.
Opposition No. 91227407

- 5 -

A. Opposer’s testimony and evidence.
1. Notice of reliance on copies of Opposer’s pleaded registrations printed
from the USPTO electronic database showing the current status of and
title to the registrations;8
2. Notice of reliance on legal decisions of the World Intellectual Property
Organization, the National Arbitration Forum, and the Trademark Trial
and Appeal Board regarding Opposer’s rights in the BACCARAT mark;9
3. Notice of reliance on examples of unsolicited media attention of
Opposer’s BACCARAT mark;10
4. Notice of reliance on examples of unsolicited media attention of
Opposer’s BACCARAT mark;11
5. Notice of reliance on entries for the term BACCARAT in dictionaries,
encyclopedias, and other standard references;12
6. Notice of reliance on U.S. government reports that refer to Opposer’s
BACCARAT mark and products;13
7. Notice of reliance on books and news articles referring to Opposer’s
BACCARAT mark and products;14
8. Notice of reliance on industrial publications that refer to Opposer’s
BACCARAT mark and products;15
9. Notice of reliance on books and news articles that refer to Opposer’s
BACCARAT mark and products;16
10. Notice of reliance on Opposer’s advertising featuring the BACCARAT
mark and products;17

8 22 TTABVUE.
9 23 TTABVUE.
10 24-25 TTABVUE.
11 24-25 TTABVUE.
12 26 TTABVUE 13-94.
13 26 TTABVUE 96-109.
14 26 TTABVUE 111-337 and 27 TTABVUE 2-183.
Opposition No. 91227407

- 6 -

11. Notice of reliance on Internet evidence featuring Opposer’s BACCARAT
mark and products;18
12. Notice of reliance on Applicant’s responses to Opposer’s
interrogatories;19
13. Notice of reliance on copies of third-party registrations for the goods and
services of both parties;20
14. Testimony declaration of Daniella Riccardi, Opposer’s Chief Executive
Officer;21
15. Rebuttal testimony declaration of Daniella Riccardi;22
16. Rebuttal testimony declaration of Jim Shreve, President and Chief
Executive Officer of Baccarat Inc. and Baccarat North America,
Opposer’s subsidiaries;23
17. Rebuttal testimony declaration of James T. Berger, Opposer’s survey
expert;24 and
18. Rebuttal notice of reliance on Internet evidence referring to Opposer’s
BACCARAT mark and products.25
B. Applicant’s testimony and evidence.
1. Notice of reliance on third-party registrations that include the word
“Baccarat”;26

15 27 TTABVUE 185-262.
16 27 TTABVUE 263-328.
17 28 TTABVUE.
18 29 TTABVUE.
19 30 TTABVUE.
20 31 TTABVUE.
21 32 TTABVUE.
22 41 TTABVUE.
23 42 TTABVUE.
24 43 TTABVUE.
25 44 TTABVUE.
26 36 TTABVUE 13-115.
Opposition No. 91227407

- 7 -

2. Notice of reliance on copies of three file histories for third-party
registrations that include the word “Baccarat”;27

3. Notice of reliance on Opposer’s responses to Applicant’s
interrogatories;28

4. Notice of reliance on Internet materials featuring the use of the name
BACCARAT by third parties;29

5. Applicant’s testimony declaration;30 and

6. Testimony declaration of Michal Matukin, Applicant’s consumer survey
expert.31

Only Opposer filed a brief.
II. Standing

Standing is a threshold issue in every inter partes case. See Empresa Cubana Del
Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co., 753 F.3d 1270, 111 USPQ2d 1058, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2014);
John W. Carson Found. v. Toilets.com Inc., 94 USPQ2d 1942, 1945 (TTAB 2010). To
establish standing in an opposition or cancellation proceeding, a plaintiff must prove
that it has a “real interest” in the proceeding and a “reasonable” basis for its belief of
damage. See Empresa Cubana, 111 USPQ2d at 1062; Ritchie v. Simpson, 170 F.3d
1092, 50 USPQ2d 1023, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Lipton Indus., Inc. v. Ralston Purina
Co., 670 F.2d 1024, 213 USPQ 185, 189 (TTAB 1982).

27 36 TTABVUE 117-292 and 37 TTABVUE 12-179.
28 37 TTABVUE 181-230.
29 37 TTABVUE 232-251 and 38 TTABVUE 12-70.
30 39 TTABVUE.
31 40 TTABVUE.
Opposition No. 91227407

- 8 -

Opposer has established its standing to bring a Section 2(d) claim by properly
introducing into evidence its pleaded registrations. See, e.g., Cunningham v. Laser
Golf Corp., 222 F.3d 943, 55 USPQ2d 1842, 1844 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (plaintiff’s two prior
registrations suffice to establish plaintiff’s direct commercial interest and its
standing); N.Y. Yankees P’ship v. IET Prods. & Servs., Inc., 114 USPQ2d 1497, 1501
(TTAB 2015).
Once a plaintiff has shown standing on one ground, it has the right to assert any
other ground in an opposition. See Poly-America, L.P. v. Illinois Tool Works Inc., 124
USPQ2d 1508, 1512 (TTAB 2017) (if petitioner can show standing on the ground of
functionality, it can assert any other grounds, including abandonment); Azeka Bldg.
Corp. v. Azeka, 122 USPQ2d 1477, 1479 (TTAB 2017) (standing established based on
surname claim sufficient to establish standing for any other ground); Luxco, Inc. v.
Consejo Regulador del Tequila,A.C., 121 USPQ2d 1477, 1481 (TTAB 2017) (opposer
established its standing as to genericness ground of certification mark and was
entitled to assert any other ground).
III. Priority
Because Opposer’s pleaded registrations are of record, priority in the opposition
proceeding is not at issue with respect to the marks and goods and services identified
therein. Mini Melts, Inc. v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1464, 1469 (TTAB
2016) (citing King Candy Co. v. Eunice King’s Kitchen, Inc., 496 F.2d 1400, 182 USPQ
108, 110 (CCPA 1974)).
Opposition No. 91227407

- 9 -

IV. Likelihood of Confusion
Our determination under Section 2(d) is based on an analysis of all of the
probative facts in evidence that are relevant to the factors bearing on the likelihood
of confusion. In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563,
567 (CCPA 1973) (“DuPont”) cited in B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc.,
575 U.S. 138, 113 USPQ2d 2045, 2049 (2015); see also In re Majestic Distilling Co.,
315 F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2003). We have considered each
DuPont factor that is relevant or for which there is evidence of record. See In re Guild
Mortg. Co., 912 F.3d 1376, 129 USPQ2d 1160, 1162-63 (Fed. Cir. 2019); M2 Software,
Inc. v. M2 Commc’ns, Inc., 450 F.3d 1378, 78 USPQ2d 1944, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2006);
ProMark Brands Inc. v. GFA Brands, Inc., 114 USPQ2d 1232, 1242 (TTAB 2015)
(“While we have considered each factor for which we have evidence, we focus our
analysis on those factors we find to be relevant.”). “[E]ach case must be decided on its
own facts and the differences are often subtle ones.” Indus. Nucleonics Corp. v. Hinde,
475 F.2d 1197, 177 USPQ 386, 387 (CCPA 1973) (internal citations removed). In any
likelihood of confusion analysis, two key considerations are the similarities between
the marks and the similarities between the goods or services. See In re Chatam Int’l
Inc., 380 F.3d 1340, 71 USPQ2d 1944, 1945-46 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Federated Foods, Inc.
v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (CCPA 1976) (“The
fundamental inquiry mandated by § 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences
in the essential characteristics of the goods and differences in the marks.”); see also
In re i.am.symbolic, LLC, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(“The likelihood of confusion analysis considers all DuPont factors for which there is
Opposition No. 91227407

- 10 -

record evidence but ‘may focus … on dispositive factors, such as similarity of the
marks and relatedness of the goods’”) (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc.,
308 F.3d 1156, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). These factors and others are
discussed below.
A. Fame of Opposer’s BACCARAT mark.
This DuPont factor requires us to consider the fame of Opposer’s mark. Fame, if
it exists, plays a dominant role in the likelihood of confusion analysis because famous
marks enjoy a broad scope of protection or exclusivity of use. A famous mark has
extensive public recognition and renown. Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Prods. Inc.,
293 F.3d 1367, 63 USPQ2d 1303, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Recot Inc. v. M.C. Becton,
214 F.3d 1322, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1897 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Kenner Parker Toys, Inc. v.
Rose Art Indus., Inc., 963 F.2d 350, 22 USPQ2d 1453, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Fame may be measured indirectly by the volume of sales of and advertising
expenditures for the goods and services identified by the marks at issue, “the length
of time those indicia of commercial awareness have been evident,” widespread critical
assessments and through notice by independent sources of the products identified by
the marks, as well as the general reputation of the products and services. Bose Corp.
v. QSC Audio Prods. Inc., 63 USPQ2d at 1305-06 and 1309. Raw numbers alone may
be misleading, however. Thus, some context in which to place raw statistics may be
necessary, for example, market share, sales, or advertising figures for comparable
types of goods. Id. at 1309.
Opposition No. 91227407

- 11 -

In the likelihood of confusion analysis, “fame ‘varies along a spectrum from very
strong to very weak.’” Joseph Phelps Vineyards, LLC v. Fairmont Holdings, LLC, 857
F.3d 1323, 122 USPQ2d 1733, 1734 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting In re Coors Brewing Co.,
343 F.3d 1340, 68 USPQ2d 1059, 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
Opposer introduced the evidence discussed below to prove that BACCARAT is a
famous mark:
1. Opposer’s predecessors-in-interest began producing glass products in February
16, 1764, after King Louis XV of France authorized the Bishop of Metz to found
a glassworks in the town of Baccarat, located in the Lorraine region of
northeast France. By 1768, the glassworks were called “Verreries de Baccarat,”
which translates to “Glassworks of Baccarat.”32
2. “In 1892, Opposer established an import agency in New York.”33
3. “During the American prohibition years of 1919 through 1933, though
[Opposer’s] sales of stemware in the U.S. saw a decrease, sales of other
glassware in the U.S. remained steady. Likewise, despite the U.S. stock
market crash of 1929 and subsequent years of depression in the United States,
Baccarat continued to sell goods in the U.S. Of note, during this period in the
midst of the Great Depression, Baccarat supplied tableware to the White
House during the presidential administration of U.S. President Franklin D.

32 Riccardi Testimony Decl. ¶7 (32 TTABVUE 4).
33 Id. at ¶14 (32 TTABVUE 5).
Opposition No. 91227407

- 12 -

Roosevelt, and also continued to supply tableware to several subsequent
presidential administrations.”34
4. “Following World War II, by 1948, sales of Baccarat glassware in the U.S. had
rebounded, and [Opposer] subsequently opened a wholesale and retail store in
New York, resulting in [Opposer’s] first American affiliate.”35
5. In the 1930s, Opposer began producing glassware and perfume bottles for
other brands, including ELIZABETH ARDEN and HENNESSY. In the late
1940’s, Opposer began producing bottles for CHRISTIAN DIOR.36 In the 1980s,
Opposer began producing bottles for GIANNI VERSACE, the design for which
was awarded the City of Paris’ First Prize for Creation (1989).37 In 2012,
Opposer manufactured the glass bottles for the French perfume LA PETITE
ROBE NOIRE by GUERLAIN.38 In 2016, Opposer collaborated with Francis
Kurkdjian to create BACCARAT 540 fragrance sold in BACCARAT crystal
perfume bottles.39 Opposer also has produced bottles for CARTIER.40

34 Id. at ¶16 (32 TTABVUE 6).
35 Id. at ¶18 (32 TTABVUE 6).
36 Id. at ¶20 (32 TTABVUE 7).
37 Id. at ¶22 (32 TTABVUE 7).
38 Id. at ¶23 (32 (TTABVUE 7).
39 Id.
40 Id. at ¶48 (32 TTABVUE 16).
Opposition No. 91227407

- 13 -

6. Since the 1900s, Opposer has produced crystal decanters and bottles for cognac
and other alcoholic beverages for Hine, Camus, Chabasse, Remy Martin,
Courvoisier, Delmain, Johnnie Walker, Woodford Reserve, and Grey Goose.41
7. In 2008, [Opposer] collaborated with EVIAN, the French water company that
produces bottled spring water sold worldwide. As a part of this collaboration,
[Opposer] designed and produced a limited number of glass water bottles
containing EVIAN water.” In 2009, Opposer and Evian prominently displayed
the bottles internationally and auctioned them to the public for tens of
thousands of dollars. The proceeds of these sales benefitted a charitable
organization.42
8. Opposer provides crystal trophies for sporting events. For example, Opposer
designs and provides the crystal trophy for the Indian Wells Tennis
Tournament held annually in California that draws more than 300,000 fans
each year, as well as for the Formula 1 racing tour.43
9. “Since as early as the early 1800s, Baccarat’s crystal wares and goods have
been entered and exhibited in numerous national and international
expositions and competitions, including World’s Fairs, to promote the progress
of Baccarat’s craftsmanship, artistry, and design,” including, but not limited
to, the High Prize at the Universal Exhibition in St. Louis (1904), New York

41 Id. at ¶51 (32 TTABVUE 17); Riccardi Rebuttal Decl. ¶¶14-15 (41 TTABVUE 6-7).
42 Id. at ¶53 (32 TTABVUE 18).
43 Id. at ¶56 (32 TTABVUE 18). See 32 TTABVUE 51-146 for news articles throughout the
United States reporting on other events presenting BACCARAT crystal awards.
Opposition No. 91227407

- 14 -

World’s Fair Outside Competition (1939), Neiman Marcus Fashion Award for
elegance in American luxury products (1979), and the International Table Top
Award prize of design in Dallas, Texas (1989).44
10. Opposer’s works are celebrated for their artistry, design and historical value
in numerous fine art, fashion, and museum exhibits, including bicentenary
exhibition at the Musée des Arts Décoratifs at the Musée du Louvre in Paris
in 1964, as well as a retrospective exhibition to mark Baccarat’s 250th
anniversary at the Grandes Galeries at the Petit Palais in Paris in 2014. The
2014 exhibit featured a selection of over 500 BACCARAT pieces on loan from
the Musée d’Orsay, the Musée du Louvre, the Musée des Arts Décoratifs, the
Cité de la Céramique, the Musée des Arts et Métiers, the Château de
Compiègne and the Musées de Nancy.45
11. From 2000-2017, Opposer’s U.S. sales of its BACCARAT branded products and
services totaled $458,430,809 (an annual average of $24,468,360).46
12. From 2005-2017, Opposer’s U.S. advertising expenditures totaled $33,996,270
(an annual average of $2,883,023).47
13. Opposer’s advertises its BACCARAT branded products and services in
magazines such as Vanity Fair, Harper’s Bazaar, Elle, Architectural Digest,
Brides, Elle Decor, The Knot, and others. It also advertises in the New York

44 Id. at ¶30 (32 TTABVUE 8-12).
45 Id. at ¶31 (32 TTABVUE 12).
46 Id. at ¶60 (32 TTABVUE 19).
47 Id. at ¶63 (32 TTABVUE 20).
Opposition No. 91227407

- 15 -

Times, The Los Angeles Times, Maxim magazine, and Forbes magazine,
among others.48 Finally, Opposer has a social media presence through
Facebook and YouTube.49
14. “As recently as 2013, based on historical data for sales of crystal wares,
including tableware, stemware, barware, and crystal products for the home
including bottles, perfume bottles, carafes, pitchers, decanters, vases, statutes,
sculptures, and figurines, [Opposer] held approximately 13% U.S. market
share among moderately-priced goods.”50 Opposer also has a “significant
share” of the U.S. market for crystal lighting products, and “a small, but
growing share” of U.S. market share for crystal jewelry products.51
15. Opposer’s BACCARAT products receive unsolicited publicity through articles
published in newspapers, journals, and magazines in print and online.52 The
examples listed below are representative of publicity introduced by Opposer:
•Amazon.com accessed March 8, 2018 advertising a book “Baccarat: Two
Hundred and Fifty Years.” The book review states,
The first book on the house of Baccarat, one of the oldest
and most preeminent luxury brands in the world,
renowned for its fine crystal creations. Baccarat celebrates
more than 250 years as one of the most important and
prestigious luxury houses. Acclaimed for its high-quality
traditional craftsmanship of find crystal stemware,
barware, candelabra, perfume bottles, and jewelry,

48 Id. at ¶64 (32 TTABVUE 20); 28 TTABVUE.
49 Id. at ¶69 (32 TTABVUE 21); 29 TTABVUE 515-551.
50 Id. at ¶65 (32 TTABVUE 20).
51 Id. at ¶69 (32 TTABVUE 21).
52 Id. at ¶71 (32 TTABVUE 22).
Opposition No. 91227407

- 16 -

Baccarat is known the world over as a symbol of quality
and refinement.53
•Forbes Magazine (forbes.com) (July 10, 2017)
New York’s Latest Five-Star Hotel The Baccarat Shares
The City’s Parisian Secrets
The Baccarat Hotel & Residences marks the first hotel
from France’s eponymous crystal brand.54
•Forbes Travel Guide (Forbestravelguide.com) (2018)
Baccarat Hotel and Residences
Famed crystal company Baccarat dazzled even the most
jaded traveler when it opened its first hotel in New York
City in 2015.55
•The Wall Street Journal (wsj.com) (October 17, 2013)
Looking Back at 250 Years of Baccarat
Many know Baccarat as the French purveyor of pristine
crystal, but few are aware of its eccentric history.56
•Interior Design Magazine (interiordesign.net) (August 26, 2013)
Baccarat Celebrates 250 Years with First-Ever Book
Baccarat 1746: Two Hundred and Fifty Years … a book
which celebrates the legacy and enduring craftsmanship of
the purveyor of the world’s finest crystal works. …
Baccarat 1746 traces the history of the iconic brand and
showcases over 300 unique pieces of crystal. … the brand

53 29 TTABVUE 130.
54 44 TTABVUE 109; see also Forbes Magazine (forbes.com) (February 25, 2017) (“The grand
crystal tradition thrives at The Bar of the Baccarat Hotel New York where every piece is
maintained with the unparalleled standards synonymous with the 253-year old luxury
brand.”). 29 TTABVUE 121.
55 44 TTABVUE 118.
56 24 TTABVUE 32; 29 TTABVUE 34.
Opposition No. 91227407

- 17 -

has received commissions from history’s elite since its
formation in 1764.57
•SuperYacht World Magazine (liveyachting.com) (September 30, 2013)
News: First Baccarat SuperYacht World Trophy for luxury
yacht MALTESE FALCON by Perini Navi
The trophy, created by Baccarat in its tradition of
perfection, was handed over to the owner of the sailing
yacht Maltese Falcon by SuperYacht World editor Paul
Ashton in from of a gathering of industry heads.58
•Financial Times (ft.com) (December 5, 2014)
How the Harcourt glass by Baccarat became a design
classic
Among crystal’s stemware, the Harcourt glass, created by
the French company Baccarat in 1841, stands apart.59
•Forbes Magazine (forbes.com) (November 26, 2013)
Grey Goose and Baccarat - - A Match Made In Heaven
Take one part smooth French vodka and one part fine
French crystal. Mix and stir. Violà. This month marks the
first collaboration between Grey Goose and Baccarat: the
“Always Stirred, Never Shaken” martini kit.
… As it turns out, Grey Goose’s exceptionally smooth
tasting vodka and Baccarat’s world-class crystal glassware
are quite comparable.60
•Architectural Digest (architecturaldigest.com) (August 2013)
For craftsmanship to be truly timeless, it must be not only
consistently brilliant in execution but also adaptive in
spirit, keeping pace with shifting tastes. Such agility has

57 25 TTABVUE 3.
58 25 TTABVUE 137.
59 25 TTABVUE 23; 29 TTABVUE 142.
60 44 TTTABVUE 85.
Opposition No. 91227407

- 18 -

long been mastered by Baccarat, the venerable French
crystal company which will celebrate its 250th anniversary
next year.
* * *
… As [Rafael de] Cárdenas [an international architect]
says of Baccarat’s legendary workmanship, “They certainly
don’t cut corners.”61
•The Free Library (thefreelibrary.com) (accessed September 9, 2011)
A Brief History of Baccarat Crystal
Baccarat is famous for its wonderful paperweights, its
superb crystal glass tableware, for 19th century colored
lead crystal glass and opaline ware, for beautiful decanters
and bottles, and for superb lead crystal structures of
animals and birds.
* * *
… All things considered, Baccarat Crystal lives up to its
legend.62
•Cognac Expert Blog (blog.cognac-expert.com) (December 16, 2010)
Baccarat and Cognac: The Relationship between Crystal
and Brandy
The other day we discovered the Baccarat store close to the
Place Vendome in Paris, and we were wondering: What is
it about ‘Baccarat’?
The name itself brings to mind exquisite creations of
crystal and glass over the centuries. …
Baccarat [is] one of the world’s leading names for fine
crystal, and along with [its] timeless tableware pieces, [is]
also known for such diverse items as millefiori

61 29 TTABVUE 68-69.
62 29 TTABVUE 42-43.
Opposition No. 91227407

- 19 -

paperweights, chandeliers, rare sculptures, barware,
perfume bottles, jewellery, and of course cognac.63
•Design & Display Ideas (March 1, 2004)
Baccarat, the elegant French doyen of the luxury market,
has a brilliant new image, with the opening of its Paris
flagship store in a historic mansion, the 240 year-old
company has partnered with design icon Phillipe Starck to
create a symbol of its renowned brand that responds to its
heritage while presenting the store as a true work of
French art.64
•The Official Price Guide to Glassware (4th ed. 2007) refers to Opposer as
“known for producing some of the finest crystal, colored glass and paperweights
being made in the world today.”65
16. Opposer’s BACCARAT products receive further publicity in television
programming in the United States such as the Public Broadcasting Service
series “Antiques Roadshow,” the History Channel series “Pawn Stars,” as well
as in movies such as “Talladega Nights” (2006) and “Spy” (2015).66
17. Some dictionaries list BACCARAT as a trademark. For example, WEBSTER’S
THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
(UNABRIDGED) (1993) has an entry for Baccarat glass “(fr. Baccarat a
trademark) fine blown, molded, and cut glass made at Baccarat, France from

63 44 TTABVUE 29-30.
64 27 TTABVUE 165.
65 27 TTABVUE 187.
66 Riccardi Testimony Decl. ¶71 (32 TTABVUE 22).
Opposition No. 91227407

- 20 -

1765 to the present time.”67 THE WORLD BOOK ENCYCLOPEDIA also has an entry
for Baccarat:
Baccarat glass: The glass works at Baccarat, France,
produced some of the best cut glass made in Europe in the
1800’s. … Baccarat glass is still being produced. Today, it
includes specially designed crystal sculptures, as well as
bowls, table service, and vases.68
Encycopedia.com (accessed September 9, 2011) also has an entry for
BACCARAT:
The name Baccarat has become nearly synonymous with
luxury. For more than 200 years, this company has
produced and distributed some of the world’s finest luxury
crystal.69
“When a trademark attains dictionary recognition as part of the language, we take
it to be reasonably famous.” B.V.D. Licensing Corp. v. Body Action Design, Inc.,
846 F.2d 727, 6 USPQ2d 1719, 1720 (Fed. Cir. 1988); quoted in B.V.D. Licensing Corp.
v. Florencio Rodriguez, 83 USPQ2d 1500, 1506 (TTAB 2007).
Based on the combination of Opposer’s long use of the BACCARAT mark in the
United States, commercial success, including a 13% market share, extensive licensing
and partnerships with other products, and very favorable publicity (e.g., “one of the

67 26 TTABVUE 20; see also THE WORLD BOOK DICTIONARY (1996) (26 TTABVUE 24).
68 26 TTABVUE 28; see also Baccarat Glass, ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA accessed October
28, 2019) (“glassware produced by an important glasshouse founded in 1765 at Baccarat,
France.”). The Board may take judicial notice of information from encyclopedias. B.V.D.
Licensing Corp. v. Body Action Design Inc., 846 F.2d 727, 6 USPQ2d 1719, 1721 (Fed. Cir.
1988) (“dictionaries and encyclopedias may be consulted”); Productos Lacteos Tocumbo S.A.
de C.V. v. Paleteria La Michoacana Inc., 98 USPQ2d 1921, 1934 n.61 (TTAB 2011); In re
Broyhill Furniture Indus. Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1511, 1514 n.4 (TTAB 2001) (dictionary entries
and other standard reference works).
69 29 TTABVUE 455.
Opposition No. 91227407

- 21 -

oldest and most preeminent luxury brands,” “eponymous crystal brand,” “the world’s
finest crystal works,” etc.), we find that Opposer’s BACCARAT mark is famous for
crystal glass products for purposes of the likelihood of confusion analysis.
Applicant argues otherwise. To counter Opposer’s evidence that BACCARAT is a
famous mark, Applicant authorized Neurohm Sp. z.o.o. Sp.k. (Neurohm), a global
market research firm, to conduct a survey to determine whether Opposer’s
BACCARAT mark is famous.70 The survey respondents “were a representative
sample of 1008 American citizens both male and female, aged 18-65.”71 Michal
Matukin, in his expert survey report, expressly pointed out that he took “special care”
to insure the respondents “were selected across thirty-nine (39) geographically
dispersed markets.”72 Mr. Matukin’s testimony makes clear that Neurohm was
testing for dilution fame rather than for likelihood of confusion.
As indicated in 15 U.S. Code § 1125(c)(2)(A) of the Lanham
Act, “a mark is famous if it is widely recognized by the
general consuming public of the United States as a
designation of source of the goods or services of the mark’s
owner.”73
Neurohm did not restrict the universe of respondents to purchasers of crystal
products and, therefore, the results of the survey are not meaningful for purposes of

70 Matukin Decl. ¶3 (40 TTABVUE 3).
71 Matukin Expert Survey Report p. 5 (40 TTABVUE 15). Neurohm included “Additional
Questions about experience with tested categories” where it asked whether the respondent
had purchased or been given crystal glassware in the past and whether the respondent plans
to purchase crystal glassware in the future. (40 TTABVUE 21). However, Neurohm did not
differentiate the responses from the respondents answering in the affirmative from the
respondents who answering in the negative.
72 Matukin Expert Survey Report p. 5-6 (40 TTABVUE 15-16).
73 Matukin Expert Survey Report p. 5-6 (40 TTABVUE 6-7).
Opposition No. 91227407

- 22 -

our likelihood of confusion analysis. “[T]he proper legal standard for evaluating the
fame of a mark under the fifth DuPont factor is the class of customers and potential
customers of a product or service, and not the general public.” Palm Bay Imports, Inc.
v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d 1689,
1695 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Although Mr. Matukin testified that Neurohm’s survey “was designed to establish
whether or not the alleged ‘BACCARAT’ mark is famous or well-known based on the
correct legal standard for fame which also included an appropriate qualifier, limiting
the participants to those with an interest in the subject matter,”74 there is nothing in
Mr. Matukin’s testimony or the expert consumer survey report explaining how
Neurohm restricted or calculated the responses limited to survey respondents who
purchased or had been given crystal glassware in the past or to respondents planning
to purchase crystal glassware in the future. Neurohm’s survey results incorporate
responses from all 1008 respondents regardless of their experience with crystal
products.75

74 Id.
75 Berger Rebuttal Testimony Decl. ¶25 (43 TTABVUE 13) (“[T]here is no evidence in the
Matukin Report or the attached survey materials and results indicating that any such
qualifier or limitation was in fact employed to limit the respondents to his survey. Moreover,
Mr. Matukin also does not provide any detail or explanation of how he purported to ‘limit[]
the participants to those with an interest in the subject matter,’ and does not attempt to
define or explain what characteristics comprise an ‘interest in the subject matter,’ or what
the purported “subject matter” is. For these reasons, based on my prior experience and
knowledge regarding survey protocols, Mr. Matukin has failed to appropriately screen or
qualify his respondents, and his survey results therefore cannot draw any conclusions with
regard to the the [sic] fame of the Marks.”).
Opposition No. 91227407

- 23 -

The Federal Judicial Center's 2011 REFERENCE MANUAL ON SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
emphasizes that:
A survey that provides information about a wholly
irrelevant population is itself irrelevant. Courts are likely
to exclude the survey or accord it little weight . . . Coverage
error is the term used to describe inconsistencies between
a sampling frame and a target population.76
By selecting an overly broad universe that included respondents without any
knowledge of crystal products, Neurohm skewed the results of the survey in
Applicant’s favor. American citizens, both male and female, aged 18-65 is too broad a
universe because there are respondents who may not purchase or never have
purchased crystal products, may not know anything about crystal products, or may
not care anything at all about crystal products.
In sum, Opposer’s BACCARAT mark has achieved a high degree of fame for
crystal glass products under Section 2(d), and this DuPont factor weighs in favor of
finding that there is a likelihood of confusion.
B. The number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods.
Applicant introduced copies of 24 third-party registrations whose marks include
the word “Baccarat” to prove that Opposer’s BACCARAT mark is a weak mark.77 The
third-party registrations that Applicant introduced are of little probative value
because they do not cover crystal glass products. They are registered for, inter alia,
casino services, card games, cigars, and flowers. See Omaha Steaks Int’l v. Greater

76 Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, 377-378 (Federal Judicial Center 3rd ed. 2011).
77 36 TTABVUE 4 and 13-292 and 37 TTABVUE 13-179.
Opposition No. 91227407

- 24 -

Omaha Packing Co., 908 F.3d 1315, 128 USPQ2d 1686, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (error
to rely on third-party evidence of similar marks for dissimilar goods, as Board must
focus “on goods shown to be similar”); In re i.am.symbolic, LLC, 123 USPQ2d at 1751
(disregarding third-party registrations for other types of goods where the proffering
party had neither proven nor explained that they were related to the goods in the
cited registration); Key Chem., Inc. v. Kelite Chem. Corp., 464 F.2d 1040, 175 USPQ
99, 101 (CCPA 1972) (“Nor is our conclusion altered by the presence in the record of
about 40 third-party registrations which embody the word ‘KEY’. The great majority
of those registered marks are for goods unrelated to those in issue, and there is no
evidence that they are in continued use. We, therefore, can give them but little weight
in the circumstances present here.”); In re Thor Tech Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1639
(TTAB 2009) (the third-party registrations are of limited probative value because the
goods identified in the registrations appear to be in fields which are far removed from
the goods at issue).
Applicant also introduced excerpts from third-party websites showing use of the
word “Baccarat” as a mark but for products far removed from crystal glass products.78
Because none of the third-party registrations or uses are for products similar to
Opposer’s crystal glass products, this DuPont factor is neutral.
C. The similarity or dissimilarity of the marks.
Applicant’s mark is BACCARAT in standard character form and Opposer’s marks
are BACCARAT in typed drawing form and stylized form reproduced below:

78 37 TTABVUE 232-251 and 38 TTABVUE 12-59.
Opposition No. 91227407

- 25 -

The marks are visually and phonetically identical.
With respect to their connotation and commercial impression, Applicant stated
that he “created his arbitrary, if not fanciful or coined, mark to pay homage to his
personal ancestry and, possibly, to allude to the quality of the water used in his
distillation process without any awareness of Opposer’s alleged but non-existent
conflicting trademark rights.”79 Applicant is referring to Baccarat, France, because
his ancestors are from the Baccarat region of France.80 Also, Applicant did not
introduce any evidence or testimony regarding his association with Baccarat the card
game. Therefore, the marks have the same meaning and engender the same
commercial impression.
We find that the marks are identical in sight, sound, connotation and commercial
impression.
D. The similarity or dissimilarity and nature of the goods.
Applicant is seeking to register its mark for vodka while Opposer has registered
its marks for inter alia, crystal and glassware including glasses, bottles, containers,
cups, decanters, carafes, and vases. Opposer introduced copies of six use-based, third-

79 Applicant’s response to Opposer’s Interrogatory No. 3, 30 TTABVUE 15 and 63.
80 Applicant’s Testimony Decl. ¶5 (39 TTABVUE 3).
Opposition No. 91227407

- 26 -

party registrations comprising both glassware and spirits (4) or wines (3).81 Third-
party registrations that individually cover a number of different goods that are based
on use in commerce may have some probative value to the extent that they serve to
suggest that the listed goods are of a type that may emanate from the same source.
In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky
Duck Mustard Co. Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1467. 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988).
Mark Reg. No. Pertinent Goods
BALLAST POINT 3693175 Beverage glassware; distilled spirits
DUCK POND 2374286 Beverage glassware; wine
COINTREAUPOLITAN 3655439 Beverage glassware; distilled spirits
BEL-AIR 4513512 Beverage glassware; sparkling wine
SCUDERIA-ITALIA 4647039 Drinking glasses, vases, goblets, carafes,
decanters, crystal beverage glassware;
wines, sparkling wines, liqueurs, spirits
THE DISTILLERY 4130821 Beverage glassware; alcoholic beverages

From its inception, Opposer produced glassware and tableware, including
drinking glasses, wine and liquor bottles, pitchers and bowls.82 Opposer produces
“hundreds” of different decanters, bottles, pitchers, glasses for wine, spirits, and
liqueurs, including crystal vodka shot glasses and crystal vodka service sets.83
However, Opposer did not stand still; it expanded its product line. In the 1800s,
Opposer began producing light fixtures, including candlesticks, candelabras, small
table lamps, and giant chandeliers.84 In 1993, Opposer began a line of crystal

81 31 TTABVUE.
82 Riccardi Testimony Decl. ¶43 (32 TTABVUE 15).
83 Id. at ¶44 (32 (TTABVUE 15-16).
84 Id. at ¶45 (32 (TTABVUE 16).
Opposition No. 91227407

- 27 -

jewelry.85 As noted above, Opposer has produced lines of glass bottles for perfumes,
including Elizabeth Arden, Christian Dior, Cartier, Guerlain, and Versace,86 as well
as bottles and decanters for Hine, Camus, Chabasse, Remy Martin, Courvoisier,
Delmain, and Grey Goose.87 “In 2008, Opposer collaborated with EVIAN, the French
water company that produces bottled spring water sold worldwide. As a part of this
collaboration, Opposer designed and produced a limited number of glass water bottles
containing EVIAN water. In 2009, the bottles were prominently displayed in cities
around the globe and auctioned to the public for tens of thousands of dollars. The
proceeds of these sales benefitted a charitable organization.”88 Opposer also makes
crystal trophies for sporting events, including the Indian Wells Tennis Tournament,
and races on the Formula 1 tour.89 In March 2015, Opposer opened the first Baccarat
Hotel & Residences in Manhattan, New York, directly across from the Museum of
Modern Art.90
In light of the fame of Opposer's mark and the expansion of its product line, the
use of the identical mark in connection with vodka may well be perceived as another
of Opposer’s commercial activities capitalizing on its BACCARAT mark. See Harley-
Davidson Motor Co. v. Pierce Foods Corp., 231 USPQ 857, 862 (TTAB 1986). This

85 Id. at ¶46 (32 (TTABVUE 16).
86 Id. at ¶48 (32 TTABVUE 16)
87 Id. at ¶¶51-52 (32 TTABVUE 17).
88 Id. at ¶53 (32 TTAABVUE 18).
89 Id. at ¶¶56-57 (32 TTABVUE 18-19).
90 Id. at ¶58 (32 TTABVUE 19).
Opposition No. 91227407

- 28 -

leads us to consider what, in our view, is the crux of the likelihood of confusion issue
in this case, namely, whether persons having knowledge of the long used and
extensively promoted BACCARAT mark for crystal products, and having encountered
the expansion of Opposer’s commercial activities as noted above, are apt to assume,
erroneously, that BACCARAT vodka emanates from the same source.
The goods at issue may be related if the public, being familiar with Opposer’s use
of its mark, and seeing Applicant’s mark on vodka, is likely to believe that Opposer
has expanded its use of its mark, directly or under license, to vodka. See, e.g., Shen
Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel, Ltd., 393 F.3d 238, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1355-56 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(the underlying factual inquiry is whether the goods are related in the mind of the
consuming public as to the origin of the goods); Recot, 54 USPQ2d at 1898 (goods may
be found related, even though they are different, where a consumer would likely think
that FRITO-LAY produced, sponsored, or licensed its mark for use for pet snack
products); Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Grp., 648 F.2d 1335, 209
USPQ 986, 988 (CCPA 1981) (“likelihood of confusion must be found if the public,
being familiar with [plaintiff’s] use of MONOPOLY for board games and seeing the
mark on any item that comes within the description of goods set forth by [applicant]
in its application, is likely to believe that [plaintiff] has expanded its use of the mark,
directly or under license.”); Harley-Davidson Motor Co., 231 USPQ at 862; Berghoff
Rest. v. Washington Forge, Inc., 225 USPQ 603, 608 (TTAB 1985) (the fame and
inherent nature of Opposer’s mark may be important factors in evaluating the
relatedness of the goods); Bridgestone Co. v. Bridgestone Trading Co., 221 USPQ
Opposition No. 91227407

- 29 -

1012, 1014 (TTAB 1984) (“we believe that opposer’s use of the mark on tires, bicycles,
tennis and golf balls, and on a wide variety of promotional items including clothing,
together with the established renown and long use of this arbitrary mark
demonstrate that purchasers, upon encountering applicant’s BRIDGESTONE mark
on shoes, are likely to mistakenly believe that this is another product produced,
sponsored or otherwise associated with opposer.”); Broadway Catering Corp. v. Carla
Inc., 215 USPQ 462, 465 (TTAB 1982) (the renown of opposer’s mark and nature of
the products at issue influence the analysis regarding whether the goods and services
are related); Hurst Performance, Inc. v. Torsten Hallman Racing, Inc., 207 USPQ 671,
675 (TTAB 1980) (“Thus, the conditions and circumstances surrounding the activities
of opposer in relation to the sale and promotion of its automotive products and those
normally expected of a party selling, as in applicant’s case, racing apparel, are such
as to be conducive to creating situations from which confusion or mistake as to the
source of those products could arise if the marks of the parties are sufficiently similar
so as to foster a misleading association or connection.”). As shown by the record
evidence, Opposer’s mark BACCARAT is famous and used in connection with a
diverse product line.
Finally, there is no evidence suggesting that Opposer would not or could not use
or license BACCARAT in connection with vodka, especially because Opposer has
already collaborated with Grey Goose vodka, as well as other producers of wine and
spirits. In these instances, consumers encounter both marks at the same time
inasmuch as the products are sold together.
Opposition No. 91227407

- 30 -

We find that the goods are related.
E. Established, likely-to-continue channels of trade and classes of
consumers.

Opposer’s products are available for purchase from exclusive retail stores operated
by Opposer in cities across the United States, including in Greenwich, Connecticut;
New York, New York; Houston, Texas; Las Vegas, Nevada; Orange County,
California; and Palm Desert, California, as well as Orlando, Florida.91 Opposer’s
products are also available through major retailers nationwide, including Barneys,
Bergdorf Goodman, Bloomingdales, Gearys, Gumps, Neiman Marcus, Macys, and
Saks 5th Avenue.92 Opposer’s products are also sold on a limited basis at Costco
locations nationwide, and as of 2018, were available in 145 independent retailers
across the United States.93
Beginning in 2012, Opposer began retail sales of its goods to consumers in the
United States through its website at Baccarat.com.94 Opposer’s products are also
available through several online retailers, such as Amazon.com and Sears.com.95 As
previously noted, because Baccarat goods are often collected for their historical value,
craftsmanship, and artistry, Baccarat goods are also frequently available for sale

91 Riccardi Testimony Decl. ¶40 (32 TTABVUE 14-15).
92 Id.
93 Id. at ¶¶40-41 (32 TTABVUE (32 TTABVUE 14-15).
94 Id. at ¶41 (32 TTABVUE 15).
95 Id.
Opposition No. 91227407

- 31 -

through traditional and contemporary auction houses throughout the U.S. and
online.96
Opposer has collaborated with alcoholic beverage companies, such as Grey Goose
(vodka), Hine, Chabasse, Rémy Martin, Courvoisier, and Delamain, for which
Opposer has designed and produced crystal bottles, decanters, and other barware.
The wines and spirits are advertised as special offers in conjunction with Opposer’s
crystal bottles, decanters, or glasses.97
Applicant did not introduce any evidence regarding its prospective channels of
trade. Nevertheless, because Applicant is seeking to register its mark for vodka
without any restrictions or limitations as to channels of trade and classes of
consumers, we presume that Applicant will sell its vodka in all the channels of trade
and to all the classes of consumers that normally purchase vodka, and that would
include some of Opposer’s consumers. See Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp.
Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2011); CBS Inc. v. Morrow, 708
F.2d 1579, 218 USPQ 198, 199 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Paula Payne Prods. Co. v. Johnson
Publ’g Co., 473 F.2d 901, 177 USPQ 76, 77 (CCPA 1973).
We find that Applicant’s vodka and Opposer’s crystal products are sold to some of
the same classes of consumers.

96 Id. at ¶42 (32 TTABVUE 15).
97 29 TTABVUE 189-192, 194-196, 263-264, 266-267, 273-277, and 279-283.
Opposition No. 91227407

- 32 -

F. Conclusion

Because Opposer’s BACCARAT mark is famous for purposes of the likelihood of
confusion analysis, the marks are identical, the goods are related and are sold to some
of the same classes of consumers, we find that Applicant’s mark BACCARAT for
“alcoholic beverages, namely, vodka” is likely to cause confusion with Opposer’s mark
BACCARAT for inter alia, crystal and glassware including glasses, bottles,
containers, cups, decanters, carafes, and vases.
Because we have found for Opposer on its Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion
claim, we need not reach the merits its claims under Sections 2(a) (deceptiveness and
false suggestion of a connection) and 43(c) (dilution) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.
§§ 1052(a) and 1125(c).
Decision: The opposition is sustained and registration to Applicant is refused.