Champagne Chanoine Freres, Depuis 1730

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2000

No. 75448727 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2000)

Paper No. 14
CEW
9/28/00
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
___________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
___________
In re Champagne Chanoine Freres, Depuis 1730
___________
Serial No. 75/448,727
___________
Lawrence E. Abelman of Abelman, Frayne & Schwab for
applicant.
Carol A. Spils, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
101 (Jerry Price, Managing Attorney).
____________
Before Seeherman, Quinn and Walters, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Walters, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Champagne Chanoine Freres, Depuis 1730 has filed a
trademark application to register the mark TSARINE for
“champagne.”1 The application record includes the statement
that TSARINE is a French word meaning “czarina.”
The Trademark Examining Attorney has finally refused
registration under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15

1 Serial No. 75/448,727, in International Class 33, filed March 12,
1998, based on an allegation of a bona fide intention to use the mark
in commerce. Applicant amended its application to assert as its basis,
under Section 44(e) of the Trademark Act, French Registration No.
92/404,956, issued February 10, 1992, and expiring February 10, 2002.
THIS DISPOSITION
IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE T.T.A.B.
Serial No. 75/448,727
2
U.S.C. 1052(d), on the ground that applicant’s mark so
resembles the mark CZARINA, previously registered for
vodka,2 that, if used in connection with applicant’s goods,
it would be likely to cause confusion or mistake or to
deceive.
Applicant has appealed. Both applicant and the
Examining Attorney have filed briefs, but an oral hearing
was not requested. We affirm the refusal to register.
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 issue. See, In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours and
Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). In the
analysis of likelihood of confusion in this case, two key
considerations are the similarities between the marks and
the similarities between the goods. Federated Foods, Inc.
v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24, 29
(CCPA 1976); and In re Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc.,
50 USPQ2d 1209 (TTAB 1999) and the cases cited therein.

2 Registration No. 724,585 issued November 28, 1981, in International
Class 33. The registration issued originally to Barton Distilling
Company and the current owner of record is Barton Brands, Ltd.
[Registration renewed for a period of twenty years from November 28,
1981; Sections 8 and 15 affidavits accepted and acknowledged,
respectively.]
Serial No. 75/448,727
3
We turn, first, to a determination of whether
applicant’s mark and the registered mark, when viewed in
their entireties, are similar in terms of appearance,
sound, connotation and commercial impression. The
Examining Attorney contends that the marks are similar in
appearance and pronunciation. Both the Examining Attorney
and applicant agree that CZARINA refers to the wife of a
Russian czar. We take judicial notice of the following
definitions in The American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd College
Edition (1985):
czar – 1. A king or emperor, especially one of
the former emperors of Russia.
czarina – The wife of a czar.
tsar – Variant of czar.
The Examining Attorney contends that, under the
doctrine of foreign equivalents, both applicant’s and
registrant’s marks are identical in connotation; and that,
in connection with the respective goods, the marks are
arbitrary.
Applicant contends, on the other hand, that the marks
differ in sight and sound, in view of their different
spellings; and that the marks differ in connotation because
CZARINA “calls to mind the association between vodka and
its country of origin, [whereas] use of TSARINE on
Serial No. 75/448,727
4
champagne is fanciful and does not call to mind any such
connection.”
In determining the extent of any similarities between
the marks, the test is not whether the marks can be
distinguished when subjected to a side-by-side comparison,
but rather whether the marks are sufficiently similar in
terms of their overall commercial impressions that
confusion as to the source of the goods or services offered
under the respective marks is likely to result. The focus
is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who
normally retains a general rather than a specific
impression of trademarks. See, Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott
Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106 (TTAB 1975).
There is no question that TSARINE is the foreign
equivalent of CZARINA. In considering the meaning and
connotation of a mark in the context of a determination of
either likelihood of confusion or descriptiveness, there is
no distinction between English terms and their foreign
equivalents. See In re Atavio Inc., 25 USPQ2d 1361 (TTAB
1992) and cases cited therein. The evidence supports the
conclusion that CZARINA is a recognized word in the English
language; that it is a feminine form of the word “czar,”
and that a “czarina” is “an empress”; and that an
alternative English language spelling of the word “czar” is
Serial No. 75/448,727
5
“tsar.” Clearly, the two marks have the same connotation.
Further, the appearance and likely pronunciation of the two
marks, CZARINA and TSARINE, are very similar, particularly
in view of the fact that the root of TSARINE, i.e., TSAR,
is an alternative spelling of the root of CZARINA, i.e.,
CZAR.
In view of the foregoing, we find that applicant’s
mark, TSARINE, is identical in connotation to registrant’s
mark, CZARINA, and it is substantially similar to
registrant’s mark in appearance, sound and overall
commercial impression.
Turning our consideration to the goods, we note the
general rule that goods or services need not be identical
or even competitive in order to support a finding of
likelihood of confusion. Rather, it is enough that goods
or services are related in some manner or that the
circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that
they would be likely to be seen by the same people under
circumstances which could give rise, because of the marks
used in connection with them, to a mistaken belief that
they originate from or are in some way associated with the
same producer or that there is an association between the
producers of each parties’ goods or services. In re
Serial No. 75/448,727
6
Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386 (TTAB 1991), and cases cited
therein.
The Examining Attorney argues that champagne and vodka
are both alcoholic beverages that are sold to the same
purchasers through the same channels of trade.
Applicant contends that the goods are “significantly
different in their nature and likely customers,” stating
that champagne is a costly “glamour wine,” whereas vodka
“is a distilled spirit from potatoes or from the least
expensive grain available”3; that “[c]hampagne is usually
imbibed by itself, while vodka is frequently mixed with
juice or other mixers or served over ice”; and that
champagne and wine are sold in different areas of a retail
establishment. Applicant argues that its mark is French,
and France is well known for champagnes, whereas the
registered mark is Russian and Russia is “perceived by the
public as the origin of most vodkas.”
Applicant points out that there is no per se rule that
requires us to find that all alcoholic beverages are
closely related, and we agree. However, neither
applicant’s nor registrant’s identifications of goods
contain any limitations and, thus, applicant’s arguments as

3 This distinction is inapposite. The alleged cost of the raw products
from which vodka may be made is not evidence of either the cost of, or
the “glamour” accorded to, the finished product.
Serial No. 75/448,727
7
to alleged distinctions regarding price, use of the
respective products and discrimination of purchasers are
not well taken. The identifications of goods encompass all
price ranges of champagne and vodka, and both
discriminating and undiscriminating purchasers. Further,
contrary to applicant’s contentions, there is no reason why
both champagne and vodka could not be used in cocktails
with other ingredients. We find that the goods are
sufficiently related that, if identified by substantially
similar marks, confusion is likely.
Therefore, we conclude that in view of the substantial
similarity in the commercial impressions of applicant’s
mark, TSARINE, and registrant’s mark, CZARINA, their
contemporaneous use on applicant’s “champagne” and
registrant’s “vodka” is likely to cause confusion as to the
source or sponsorship of such goods.
Moreover, to the extent that we have any doubts
regarding the likelihood of confusion in this case in view
of the differences that do exist between the respective
alcoholic beverages, we resolve that doubt, as we must, in
favor of the registrant. See J & J Snack Foods Corp. v.
McDonald’s Corp., 932 F.2d 1460, 18 USPQ2d 1889 (Fed. Cir.
1991); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6
USPQ2d 1025 (Fed Cir. 1988); and W.R. Grace & Co. v.
Serial No. 75/448,727
8
Herbert J. Meyer Industries, Inc., 190 USPQ 308 (TTAB
1976).
Decision: The refusal under Section 2(d) of the Act
is affirmed.
E. J. Seeherman
T. J. Quinn
C. E. Walters
Administrative Trademark Judges,
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board