Michael-David, LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 24, 2021

88662293 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2021)

Mailed: August 24, 2021

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Michael-David, LLC
_____

Application No. 88662293
_____

Alain Villeneuve of Duane Morris LLP for Michael-David, LLC.

Tyler Seling, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 112,
Renee Servance, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Cataldo, Bergsman and English, Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Bergsman, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Michael-David, LLC (Applicant) seeks registration on the Principal Register of the
mark NORTHCOAST WINE CO., in standard character form, for the goods and
services below:
Glass bottles sold empty; Wine glasses; Coasters, not of
paper or textile, in International Class 21;
T-shirts; Sweatshirts; Jackets; Shorts; Pants; Scarves;
Aprons; Hats, in International Class 25;
Wine, in International Class 33;
Online retail store services featuring wine; Retail store
services featuring wine, in International Class 35; and
This Opinion Is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Precedent of the TTAB
PrePrecedent of the TTAB
Serial No. 88662293

- 2 -

Entertainment services, namely, wine tasting; Conducting
guided tours of wineries; Arranging, organizing,
conducting, and hosting social entertainment events;
Entertainment services in the nature of hosting social
entertainment events; Special event planning for social
entertainment purposes, in International Class 41.1
Applicant disclaims the exclusive right to use “Wine Co.”
The Examining Attorney refused to register Applicant’s mark for wine, in
International Class 33, under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(d),
on the ground that Applicant’s mark so resembles the registered marks listed below,
owned by the same entity, all for “beer, ale, lager, stout and porter,” in International
Class 32, as to be likely to cause confusion:
● Registration No. 4488084 for the mark NORTH COAST BREWING CO. and
design, reproduced below:2

The description of the mark reads as follows:
The color(s) black, white, grey, gold, and yellow is/are
claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of a
black, white and grey sperm whale emerging through a
yellow ring, with gold teeth around the outer border of the
ring, and the words “NORTH COAST BREWING CO.” in
black imprinted on the ring, and sea water/waves

1 Serial No. 88662293 filed October 21, 2019, 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 its mark in
commerce.
2 Registered February 25, 2014; Sections 8 and 15 declarations accepted and acknowledged.
Serial No. 88662293

- 3 -

splashing from the whale’s tail, in the ring, and on top of
the ring.
Registrant claims the term “North Coast Brewing Co.” has acquired distinctiveness
under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f), and Registrant disclaims
the exclusive right to use the term “Brewing Co.”
● Registration No. 4520591 for the mark NC NORTH COAST BREWING CO. and
design, reproduced below:3

The description of the mark reads as follows:
The color(s) black, white and red is/are claimed as a feature
of the mark. The mark consists of a black ring, with black
teeth around the outer border of the ring, and the words
“NORTH COAST BREWING CO.” in white imprinted on
the ring, with the capital letters “N” and “C” in black
overlapping inside the ring, and a red symbol inside the
ring above the letter “N” consisting of four leaves in a cross
like pattern and five rectangles lined up among the leaves.
Registrant disclaims the exclusive right to use the term “North Coast Brewing Co.”
● Registration No. 4925309 for the mark NORTH COAST BREWING, in standard
character form, under the provisions of Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 1052(f).4 Registrant disclaims the exclusive right to use the word “Brewing.”

3 Registered April 29, 2014; Sections 8 and 15 declarations accepted and acknowledged.
4 Registered March 29, 2016; Section 8 declaration accepted.
Serial No. 88662293

- 4 -

The Examining Attorney also refused to register Applicant’s mark under Section
2(e)(2) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2(e)(2), on the ground that the term
NORTHCOAST WINE CO. is primarily geographically descriptive. The Examining
Attorney contends that the North Coast is a generally known location, namely, a
region in northern California known for wines and wineries.5
Finally, the Examining Attorney refused to register Applicant’s mark under
Sections 1, 2, 3, and 45 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051, 1052, 1053, and
1127, on the ground that Applicant’s mark NORTHCOAST WINE CO. is a known
grape growing region in the U.S. and, therefore, it is informational matter to indicate
wine originating from the North Coast of California.6
I. Likelihood of Confusion
We base our determination under Section 2(d) 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

5 Examining Attorney’s Brief (6 TTABVUE 16).
6 Examining Attorney’s Brief (6 TTABVUE 22-23).
Serial No. 88662293

- 5 -

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).
“Not all DuPont factors are relevant in each case, and the weight afforded to each
factor depends on the circumstances. … Any single factor may control a particular
case.” Stratus Networks, Inc. v. UBTA-UBET Commc’ns Inc., 955 F.3d 994,
2020 USPQ2d 10341, *3 (Fed. Cir. 2020). 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 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)).
Because the design elements in Registration Nos. 4488084 and 4520591 arguably
contain additional points of difference with Applicant’s mark, we confine our analysis
Serial No. 88662293

- 6 -

to the issue of likelihood of confusion between Applicant’s mark and the mark in Reg.
No. 4925309 for the mark NORTH COAST BREWING, in standard character form.
That is, if confusion is likely between those marks, there is no need for us to consider
the likelihood of confusion with the cited marks with design elements; the standard
character mark would be a sufficient basis for us to affirm the refusal of registration.
Conversely, if we find there is no likelihood of confusion between Applicant’s mark
and the cited mark in standard character form, then there would be no likelihood of
confusion with the marks with design elements. See, e.g., In re Max Capital Grp. Ltd.,
93 USPQ2d 1243, 1245 (TTAB 2010).
A. The strength of NORTH COAST BREWING, including the number and
nature of similar marks in connection with similar goods.

When making a determination of likelihood of confusion in an ex parte appeal, in
order to determine the conceptual strength of a cited word mark under the sixth
DuPont factor, we evaluate its intrinsic nature, that is, where it lies along the generic-
descriptive-suggestive-arbitrary-fanciful continuum of words. Word marks that are
arbitrary, fanciful, or suggestive are “held to be inherently distinctive.” Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., Inc., 529 U.S. 205, 54 USPQ2d 1065, 1068 (2000). See
also In re Chippendales USA, Inc., 622 F.3d 1346, 96 USPQ2d 1681, 1684 (Fed. Cir.
2010) (“In general, trademarks are assessed according to a scale formulated by Judge
Friendly in Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F.2d 4, 189 USPQ
Serial No. 88662293

- 7 -

759 (2d Cir. 1976), which evaluates whether word marks are ‘arbitrary’ or ‘fanciful,’
‘suggestive,’ ‘descriptive,’ or ‘generic.’”).7
Because the USPTO registered Registrant’s mark on the Principal Register under
the provisions of Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act, Registrant conceded that NORTH
COAST BREWING is not inherently distinctive when used in connection with “beer,
ale, lager, stout and porter.” See Yamaha Int’l Corp. v. Hoshino Gakki Co. Ltd., 840
F.2d 1572, 6 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“[I]n cases where registration was
initially sought on the basis of distinctiveness, subsequent reliance by the applicant
on Section 2(f) assumes that the mark has been shown or conceded to be merely
descriptive.”).
However, Registrant claims under Section 2(f) that through use its mark has
developed trademark significance. See G.H. Mumm & Cie v. Desnoes & Geddes
Ltd., 917 F.2d 1292, 16 USPQ2d 1635, 1637 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (acquired distinctiveness
“arises when a symbol or device, not inherently distinctive at the time of its adoption,
later acquires distinctiveness such that the symbol or device serves as a mark to
indicate the source of the associated goods. (Internal citation omitted). A mark that
has acquired secondary meaning may serve as a trademark and be protected even if
the mark was not distinctive at the time of its adoption.”); Yamaha Int’l
Corp., 6 USPQ2d at 1007 (“Section 2(f) permits registration of marks that, despite
not qualifying for registration in light of Section 2(e), have nevertheless ‘become

7 We also look to evidence pertaining to the number and nature of similar marks in use in
connection with similar goods. However, Applicant did not submit any evidence of similar
marks in use for similar goods.
Serial No. 88662293

- 8 -

distinctive of the applicant’s goods in commerce.’”). The USPTO registers marks
under the provisions of Section 2(f) on the Principal Register and, therefore, provides
the owner with a statutory presumption of trademark rights to preclude others from
such use as would result in confusion. Section 7(b) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 1057(b) (i.e., validity of the registered mark and of the registration of that mark,
registrant's ownership of the mark, and the registrant’s exclusive right to use the
registered mark on or in connection with the goods or services specified in the
registration).
The fact that the USPTO registered Registrant’s mark on the Principal Register
under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act means that we presume it has acquired
source-indicating significance and that is enough for it to preclude the registration of
a similar mark for use in connection with related goods and services.
Although Applicant did not submit any evidence of similar marks actually in use
for similar goods, Applicant submitted copies of the following two registrations to
show that “North Coast” is a weak term:8
● Registration No. 5212518 for the mark NO COAST PALE ALE, in standard
character form, for “ale; beer”;9 and

8 February 27, 2020 Response to Office Action pp. 19-20 (TSDR 142-43).
9 February 27, 2020 Response to Office Action (TSDR 72).
Citations to the prosecution history record are to the USPTO Trademark Status and
Document Retrieval system (TSDR) by page number in the .pdf format.
Serial No. 88662293

- 9 -

● Registration No. 5106431 for the mark NoCoast, in standard character form,
for “beer, ale, lager, stout and porter.”10
Applicant submitted a dictionary definition to show that “No.” may be an
abbreviation for “north” or “northern.”11 However, “No.” also may be the abbreviation
for number12 and the above-noted marks do not include “No.” (with a period) but “No”
(without a period) as in negative.
Different registrants own the marks in these registrations.13 The registrants in
the above-noted registrations are located in Wisconsin and Iowa respectively
implying that they are not near a coast. In addition, Applicant submitted what
appears to be the specimen of use for the NoCoast mark in Registration No. 5106431
reproduced below:14

10 February 27, 2020 Office Action (TSDR 74).
11 The Free Dictionary.com based on the AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH
LANGUAGE (5th ed. 2016) attached to the February 27, 2020 Office Action (TSDR 79).
12 Id. See also February 27, 2020 Office Action (TSDR 98-104) (seven third-party registrations
incorporating the term “No.” as an abbreviation for number (e.g., BLEND NO. 5, NO. 3, SIN
NO. 8, etc.)).
13 The record before us does not indicate whether any agreement exists between these
registrants regarding the coexistence of their “No Coast” marks for use in connection with
beer and ale.
14 February 27, 2020 Office Action (TSDR 74).
Serial No. 88662293

- 10 -

The top line reads “No Sharks,” “No Tsunamis,” and “No Pirates,” engendering the
commercial impression of the NoCoast mark as “no coast.” This commercial
impression is further reinforced by the text on the left-hand side of the label:
“NoCoast says no to know-it-alls and up yours to one-uppers.”
Applicant also submitted an excerpt from the NoCoast registrant’s Facebook
page.15 The Facebook page has a design featuring the legend “Middle of the Map on
Tap” and text stating that the NoCoast is “freedom from pretensions.” Again,
engendering the commercial impression that NoCoast is far from a coast.
Even assuming the “No” in the above-noted registrations is the abbreviation of
“north” or “northern,” two third-party registrations for marks incorporating the
abbreviation “No” for “North” is a far cry from the large quantum of evidence of third-
party use and third-party registrations that was held to be significant in both Jack

15 February 27, 2020 Office Action (TSDR 79).
Serial No. 88662293

- 11 -

Wolfskin Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH & Co. KGAA v. New Millennium Sports,
S.L.U., 797 F.3d 1363, 116 USPQ2d 1129, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and Juice Generation
v. GS Enters., LLC, 794 F.3d 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also
In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018).
Finally, Applicant submitted numerous third-party registrations for other “Coast”
marks, such as COASTVIEW, WEST COAST HAZE, and EAST COAST LAGER.16
Applicant contends, “the arrival of NORTHCOAST WINE CO. will slide in this set
rather normally and without creating confusion.”17 However, the Examining Attorney
cited NORTH COAST BREWING, not COASTVIEW, WEST COAST HAZE, or EAST
COAST LAGER, etc. as a bar to the registration of Applicant’s mark. None of the
other “Coast” marks is nearly as close to Registrant’s NORTH COAST BREWING as
Applicant’s NORTHCOAST WINE CO.
In sum, Registrant’s mark NORTH COAST BREWING is strong enough to
preclude the registration of a similar mark for use in connection with related goods
and services.
B. The similarity or dissimilarity of the marks.
Applicant is seeking to register NORTHCOAST WINE CO. and the cited mark is
NORTH COAST BREWING. The marks are similar because they share the same
structure: Applicant and Registrant place the term “Northcoast” or “North Coast” at
the beginning of the mark followed by a descriptive or generic term (“Wine Co.” or

16 February 27, 2020 Office Action (TSDR 68-70 and 85-96).
17 Applicant’s Brief, p. 13 (4 TTABVUE 15).
Serial No. 88662293

- 12 -

“Brewing”). They differ because Applicant’s mark includes the term “Wine Co.” and
Registrant’s mark includes the word “Brewing.”
Although the Applicant presents its mark without a space between the words
“North” and “Coast,” consumers are likely to view and verbalize it as “North Coast,”
based on normal English pronunciation. Thus, the presence or absence of a space
between the two words is an inconsequential difference that even if consumers
noticed or remembered would not serve to distinguish these marks. In re Iolo Techs.,
LLC, 95 USPQ2d 1498, 1499 (TTAB 2010) (finding ACTIVECARE and ACTIVE
CARE are similar); Giersch v. Scripps Networks Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1020, 1025 (TTAB
2009) (finding that petitioner’s mark DESIGNED2SELL is phonetically identical to
respondent’s mark DESIGNED TO SELL because the “marks are also highly similar
visually, with the sole differences being the substitution in respondent's mark of the
short preposition ‘to’ for the number ‘2’ between the two dominant words, and the use
of spaces between them” and because “the spaces that respondent places between the
words do not create a distinct commercial impression from petitioner's presentation
of his mark as one word.”); Seaguard Corp. v. Seaward Int’l, Inc., 223 USPQ2d 48, 51
(TTAB 1984) (SEA GUARD and SEAGUARD are “essentially identical”); In re Best
Western Family Steak House, Inc., 222 USPQ 827, 827 (TTAB 1984) (“there can be
little doubt that the marks [BEEFMASTER for restaurant services and BEEF
MASTER for frankfurters and bologna] are practically identical and indeed applicant
has not argued otherwise.”); Stock Pot, Inc. v. Stockpot Rest., Inc., 220 USPQ 52, 54
(TTAB 1983), aff’d 737 F.2d 1576, 222 USPQ 665 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“There is no
Serial No. 88662293

- 13 -

question that the marks of the parties [STOCKPOT AND STOCK POT] are
confusingly similar. The word marks are phonetically identical and visually almost
identical.”).
“Northcoast” is the dominant part of Applicant’s mark NORTHCOAST WINE CO.
and “North Coast” is the dominant part of Registrant’s mark NORTH COAST
BREWING because “Wine Co.” in Applicant’s mark is descriptive, if not generic, and
“Brewing” in Registrant’s mark is generic. Thus, Applicant disclaimed the exclusive
right to use “Wine Co.” and Registrant disclaimed the exclusive right to use
“Brewing.” It is well-settled that disclaimed, descriptive matter may have less
significance in likelihood of confusion determinations. See In re Detroit Ath. Co.,
903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie
Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997));
Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp., 222 F.3d 943, 55 USPQ2d 1842, 1846 (Fed. Cir.
2000) (“Regarding descriptive terms, this court has noted that the ‘descriptive
component of a mark may be given little weight in reaching a conclusion on the
likelihood of confusion.’”) (quoting In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ
749, 752 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); In re Code Consultants, Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1699, 1702 (TTAB
2001) (disclaimed matter is often “less significant in creating the mark’s commercial
impression”).
There is nothing improper in stating that, for rational reasons, we have given
more or less weight to a particular feature of a mark, such as a common dominant
element, provided the ultimate conclusion rests on a consideration of the marks in
Serial No. 88662293

- 14 -

their entireties. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed.
Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 224 USPQ at 751.
Further reinforcing the importance of NORTHCOAST/NORTH COAST in their
respective marks is their location as the first part of the marks. See Detroit Ath. Co.,
128 USPQ2d at 1049 (finding “the identity of the marks’ two initial words is
particularly significant because consumers typically notice those words first”); Palm
Bay Imps. Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369,
73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Veuve” is the most prominent part of the
mark VEUVE CLICQUOT because “veuve” is the first word in the mark and the first
word to appear on the label); Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am.,
970 F.2d 874, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1700 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (upon encountering the marks,
consumers will first notice the identical lead word); Presto Prods. Inc. v. Nice-Pak
Prods., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1895, 1897 (TTAB 1988) (“[I]t is often the first part of a mark
which is most likely to be impressed upon the mind of a purchaser and remembered.”).
Because Applicant’s mark is similar in structure to Registrant’s mark (i.e., the
word “Northcoast” followed by a highly descriptive, if not generic term), consumers
familiar with Registrant’s mark NORTH COAST BREWING for “beer, ale, lager,
stout and porter” may mistakenly believe that Applicant’s mark NORTHCOAST
WINE CO. is a new NORTH COAST product line.
We find that Applicant’s mark NORTHCOAST WINE CO. is similar to
Registrant’s mark NORTH COAST BREWING in terms of appearance, sound,
connotation and commercial impression.
Serial No. 88662293

- 15 -

C. The similarity or dissimilarity and nature of the goods.
To prove that wine is related to beer, ale, lager, porter and stout, the Examining
Attorney submitted 19 third-party, used-based registrations for those products and a
number of third-party websites advertising those products under the same mark.
Third-party registrations for goods listed in both the application and registration at
issue based on use in commerce may have 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, 1785-1786 (TTAB 1993); In
re Mucky Duck Mustard Co. Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988), aff’d mem.
864 F.2d 149 (Fed. Cir. 1988). We list below the registrations, with relevant portions
of the identifications:18
MARK REG. NO. GOODS
SALTY DOG 4136155 Beer, ale, lager, porter and stout; wine
BREWVO 4979543 Beer, ale, lager, porter and stout; wine
ROADIES 4838384 Beer, ale, lager, porter and stout; wine
TULASI 5116260 Beer, ale, lager, porter and stout; wine
A CRAFTED
EXPERIENCE
5159453 Beer, porter; wine
TERP 5166429 Beer, ale, lager, porter and stout; wine
BEAT CULTURE 5662013 Beer, ale, lager, porter and stout; wine
LAKE LIFE 5603137 Beer; wine
BOX OFFICE BREWERY 6008580 Beer, ale, lager, porter and stout; wine
A & Design 5733907 Beer; wine
SPRINGGATE 5973378 Beer; wine
WASH IT DOWN 6032892 Beer; wine

18 May 18, 2020 Office Action (TSDR 71-107). See also November 5, 2020 Denial of Request
for Reconsideration (TSDR 5-22) (seven copies of marks registered for, inter alia, beer and
wine).
We do not include Registration No. 5604011 for the mark TROPHY ROOM because it does
not include wine. May 20, 2020 Office Action (TSDR 80).
Serial No. 88662293

- 16 -

The Examining Attorney submitted excerpts from the third-party websites we list
below to show that wine and beer, ale, lager, porter and stout are related.19 See Detroit
Ath. Co., 128 USPQ2d at 1051 (relatedness supported by evidence that third parties
sell both types of goods under the same mark, showing that “consumers are
accustomed to seeing a single mark associated with a source that sells both”); In re
Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1203 (TTAB 2009) (third-party internet
evidence may be probative to prove goods are related); In re Paper Doll Promotions,
Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1660, 1668 (TTAB 2007) (evidence obtained from the Internet may
be used to support a determination under Section 2(d) that the services are related).
● Fenton Winery & Brewery website (fentonbrewery.com)20 displaying FENTON
on beer21 and wine.22

19 Bias Winery website (biaswinery.com) advertising itself as “A Winery and a Microbrewery”
is not as probative as the other listed third-party excerpts because the website does not show
the same or similar mark used on beer and wine. February 4, 2020 Office Action (TSDR 36-
41). It is probative to show that a winery and microbrewery may emanate from the same
source.
McMenamins Edgefield Winery website (edgefieldwinery.com) displaying EDGEFIELD on
wine (May 18, 2020 Office Action (TSDR 31-32)) and the McMenamins website
(mcmenamins.com) displaying McMENAMINS on beer (May 18, 2020 Office Action (TSDR
33-38)) are not probative to show wine and beer are related products because, although the
products emanate from one source, that source uses different marks to identify its beer and
wine.
Likewise, the Round Barn website (roundbarn.com) (November 5, 2020 Denial of Request for
Reconsideration (TSDR 52-73)) uses the mark ROUND BARN BREWERY to identify its beer
(id. at TSDR 62-63) and FARM MARKET and a barn logo to identify its wine (id. at TSDR
65-69).
20 February 4, 2020 Office Action (TSDR 42-59).
21 Id. at TSDR 45.
22 Id. at TSDR 52-59.
Serial No. 88662293

- 17 -

● Schilling Bridge Winery website (shillingbridgewinery.com)23 displaying
SCHILLNGBRIDGE on beer24 and wine.25
● Barrel Oak Winery website (barreloak.com)26 displaying BARREL OAK on
wine27 and beer.28
● Motor City Brewing Works website (motorcitybeer.com)29 displaying MOTOR
CITY on beer30 and wine.31
● Schram Vineyards website (schramvineyards.com)32 displaying SCHRAM
VINEYARD on wine33 and SHRAM HAUS BREWERY on beer.34

23 February 4, 2020 Office Action (TSDR 60-65). The Examining Attorney submitted a copy
of Registration No. 5480757 for the mark SCHILLINGBRIDGE for beer and wine. November
5, 2020 Denial of Request for Reconsideration (TSDR 10).
24 Id. at TSDR 62-63.
25 Id. at TSDR 64-65.
26 May 18, 2020 Office Action (TSDR 20-30).
27 Id. at TSDR 20 and 23-24.
28 Id. at TSDR 26.
29 May 18, 2020 Office Action (TSDR 39-42).
30 Id. at TSDR 39-42.
31 Id. at TSDR 42. See also November 5, 2020 Denial of Request for Reconsideration (TSDR
25-26).
32 May 18, 2020 Office Action (TSDR 43-47).
33 Id. at TSDR 44. See also November 5, 2020 Denial of Request for Reconsideration (TSDR
27).
34 Id. at TSDR 45. See also November 5, 2020 Denial of Request for Reconsideration (TSDR
32).
Serial No. 88662293

- 18 -

● Valley Vineyards website (valleyvineyards.com)35 displaying VALLEY
VINEYARDS on wine36 and beer.37
● The Vineyard at Hershey website and The Brewery at Hershey website
(vineyardathershey.com)38 displaying THE VINEYARD AT HERSHEY on wine39 and
THE BREWERY AT HERSHEY on beer.40
● Von Jakob Winery & Brewery website (vonjakobvineyard.com)41 displaying
VON JACOB BREWERY on beer42 and VON JACOB on wine.43
● Wagner Vineyards website (wagnervineyards.com)44 displaying WAGNER on
wine45 and Wagner Valley Brewing Co. website (wagnerbrewing.com) displaying
WAGNER VALLEY on beer.46

35 May 18, 2020 Office Action (TSDR 48-51).
36 Id. at TSDR 48-49.
37 Id. at TSDR 50-51.
38 May 18, 2020 Office Action (TSDR 51-57).
39 Id. at TSDR 53.
40 Id. at TSDR 55-57.
41 May 18, 2020 Office Action (TSDR 58-63).
42 Id. at TSDR 59-60.
43 Id. at TSDR 60.
44 May 18, 2020 Office Action (TSDR 64-67).
45 Id. at TSDR 64-65 and 67.
46 November 5, 2020 Denial of Request for Reconsideration (TSDR 34).
Serial No. 88662293

- 19 -

● Mackinaw Trail Winery & Brewery website (mackinawtrailwinery.com)47
displaying MACKINAW TRAIL on wine48 and beer.49
Applicant contends that because there are 8,000 wineries compared to only 3,700
breweries,50 the Examining Attorney’s evidence shows only a few are joint wineries
and breweries and most of these are not truly known.51 First, Internet documents
generally have limited probative value because they are admissible to show only what
has been printed, not the truth of what has been printed. See Safer, Inc. v. OMS
Investments, Inc., 94 USPQ2d 1031, 1040 (TTAB 2010). Because website contents and
search engine results are accessible by the consuming public (although search engine
results may be retrieved only if members of the public enter the identical search
strategy), they constitute evidence of potential public exposure. See In re Mr. Recipe,
LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1084, 1087 n.4 (TTAB 2016) (stories are probative of the
perceptions of the authors and of the content received by the readers); In re Viventia
Biotech Inc., 80 USPQ2d 1376, 1379 (TTAB 2006) (use of term in articles shows
authors’ belief that term is appropriate way to describe goods and that readers will
understand the meaning of the term).
Second, the Examining Attorney submitted a sufficient quantity of third-party
websites and registrations to make a prima facie case that wine and beer, ale, lager,

47 November 5, 2020 Denial of Request for Reconsideration (TSDR 36-51).
48 Id. at TSDR 39
49 Id. at TSDR 43.
50 See “Beer Talk,” Beer Advocate (beeradvocate.com) (January 6, 2015) attached to the
February 27, 2020 Response to Office Action (TSDR 44).
51 Applicant’s Brief, p. 15 (4 TABVUE 16).
Serial No. 88662293

- 20 -

stout and porter are related products. Applicants and examining attorneys should not
submit unnecessarily cumulative evidence. In re Homes & Land Publ’g Corp.,
24 USPQ2d 1717, 1718 (TTAB 1992) (it is not necessary that an examining attorney
submit all stories found, especially where there are a large number of them). Cf. In
re Max Capital Grp., 93 USPQ2d at 1245-46 (Board criticized applicant for
submitting over 300 pages of Internet material, much of which was duplicative or
irrelevant).
Third, the article on which Applicant relies states “Over 8,000 wineries compared
to only 3,700 breweries.”52 However, it is not clear from that statement alone whether
any of the 8,000 wineries is associated with a brewery or vice versa. In other words,
the fact that there are 8,000 wineries does not mean that some percentage of those
wineries are not associated with a brewery or that some percentage of the breweries
are not associated with a winery.
Finally, there is no requirement that for wine and beer, ale, lager, porter and stout
to be related that all, a majority, or even a significant segment of wineries must also
be the source of beer, ale, lager, porter and stout. Therefore, evidence that there are
more wineries than breweries does not aid Applicant in its attempt to rebut the
Examining Attorney’s evidence.
We find Applicant’s wine related to Registrant’s beer, ale, lager, porter and stout.

52 “Beer Talk,” Beer Advocate (beeradvocate.com) (January 6, 2015) attached to the February
27, 2020 Response to Office Action (TSDR 44).
Serial No. 88662293

- 21 -

D. Established, likely-to-continue channels of trade, and classes of
consumers.

The excerpts from the third-party websites show that some wineries/breweries sell
both beer and wine and that some of the same consumers will encounter the beer and
wine in the same marketing milieu. Applicant concedes that wine is sold in the same
channels of trade as beer.
Beer and wine are sold (a) online, (b) in retail, (c) in
restaurants, and (d) in locations of production / concert
venues.53
We find that wine and beer, ale, lager, porter and stout are sold in some of the
same channels of trade to some of the same consumers.
E. Conditions under which and customers to whom sales are made, i.e.,
careful, sophisticated purchases vs. “impulse” purchases.

Applicant contends that the conditions under which beer and wine are sold
minimizes the likelihood of confusion because (i) customers must be at least 21 years
old,54 (ii) retailers have developed guides at the point of sale,55 (iii) beer and wine are
sold in separate sections of stores and may be sorted by type,56 and (iv) the selection
of wine is not done quickly or randomly.57
Because the respective identifications include “wine” and “beer, ale, lager, porter
and stout” without any particular price point or other limitations or restrictions, we

53 Applicant’s Brief, p. 18 (4 TTABVUE 19).
54 Applicant’s Brief, p. 17 (4 TTABVUE 18).
55 Applicant’s Brief, p.18 (4 TTABVUE 19).
56 Applicant’s Brief, p. 20 (4 TTABVUE 21).
57 Applicant’s Brief, p. 20 (4 TTABVUE 21).
Serial No. 88662293

- 22 -

must treat the goods as including inexpensive as well as more costly wine and beer
and, therefore, presume that purchasers for those beverages include ordinary
consumers who may buy inexpensive beer and wine on impulse. See Stone Lion
Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1163-
64 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (recognizing Board precedent requiring consideration of the “least
sophisticated consumer in the class”). See also In re Sailerbrau Franz Sailer,
23 USPQ2d 1719, 1720 (TTAB 1992) (finding that all purchasers of wine may not be
discriminating because while some may have preferred brands, “there are just as
likely to be purchasers who delight in trying new taste treats.”).
We find the conditions under which sales are made is a neutral DuPont factor.
F. Conclusion.
Because the marks are similar, the goods are related and the goods are offered in
some of the same channels of trade to some of the same classes of consumers, we find
that Applicant’s mark NORTHCOAST WINE CO. for wine is likely to cause confusion
with the registered mark NORTH COAST BREWERY for “beer, ale, lager, porter and
stout.”
II. Whether NORTHCOAST WINE CO. is primarily geographically
descriptive.
We list below the elements for proving that a mark is primarily geographically
descriptive under Section 2(e)(2) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(2):
(1) The mark is the name of a place known generally to the public;

(2) The goods for which applicant seeks registration originate in the
geographic place identified in the mark; and

Serial No. 88662293

- 23 -

(3) Purchasers would be likely to believe that the goods originate in the
geographic place identified in the mark.

See In re Newbridge Cutlery Co., 776 F.3d 854, 113 USPQ2d 1445, 1448-49 (Fed. Cir.
2015); In re Societe Generale des Eaux Minerales de Vittel S.A., 824 F.2d 957,
3 USPQ2d 1450, 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Broken Arrow Beef & Provision, LLC,
129 USPQ2d 1431, 1432 (TTAB 2019); In re Hollywood Lawyers Online, 110 USPQ2d
1852, 1853 (TTAB 2014).
“[T]he presence of generic or highly descriptive terms in a mark which also
contains a primarily geographically descriptive term does not serve to detract from
the primary geographical significance of the mark as a whole.” Hollywood Lawyers
Online, 110 USPQ2d at 1853-54 (quoting In re JT Tobacconists, 59 USPQ2d 1080,
1082 (TTAB 2001) (MINNESOTA CIGAR COMPANY primarily geographically
descriptive of cigars from Minnesota).58
Finally, we note that Applicant’s mark NORTHCOAST WINE CO. combines the
words “North” and “Coast” into “Northcoast.” The compound word “Northcoast” does
not have a different meaning from its constituent words “North Coast.” That is, the
words “North Coast” are not lent any additional meaning simply by virtue of their
having been combined into the compound term NORTHCOAST. Applicant has
suggested no such other or additional meaning that results from the compression of

58 Accordingly, we reject Applicant’s argument that the addition of the term “Wine Co.” to the
mark NORTHCOAST WINE CO. “transforms a descriptive mark into a fully functional non-
descriptive mark.” Applicant’s Brief, pp. 10-11 (4 TTABVUE 11-12). In this regard, we note
that Applicant concedes that the term “North Coast” is geographically descriptive.
Applicant’s Brief, p. 10 (TSDR 11) (“Applicant understands NORTH COAST to be
geographically descriptive.”).
Serial No. 88662293

- 24 -

the two words into one, and we are aware of none. Therefore, if the evidence of
record establishes that “North Coast” as applied to Applicant’s goods and services is
primarily geographically descriptive, then the evidence also suffices to establish that
NORTHCOAST is primarily geographically descriptive. Cf. In re Gould Paper
Corp., 834 F.2d 1017, 5 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (SCREENWIPE, a compound
term composed of generic words SCREEN and WIPE, itself is generic for “pre-
moistened, anti-static cloth for cleaning computer and television screens”); In re Cox
Enters. Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1040, 1043 (TTAB 2007) (“THEATL is simply a compressed
version of the descriptive term THE ATL without a space between the two words.
Without the space, THEATL is equivalent in sound, meaning and impression to THE
ATL and is equally descriptive of applicant's goods”); In re Planalytics Inc.,
70 USPQ2d 1453 (TTAB 2004) (GASBUYER merely descriptive of providing on-line
risk management services in the field of pricing and purchasing decisions for natural
gas; the absence of the space does not create a different meaning or perception of the
term); In re A La Vieille Russie, Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1895, 1899 (TTAB 2001)
(RUSSIANART is generic for “dealership services in the field of fine art, antiques,
furniture and jewelry”).
Because the goods at issue are, inter alia, wine and wine glasses and the services
are retail stores services featuring wine, conducting wine tastings and tours of
wineries, the average purchaser is an American wine drinker.
Serial No. 88662293

- 25 -

A. Whether “Northcoast” is a generally known geographic
place.

Based on the evidence we list below, the Examining Attorney contends that
“Northcoast” is a generally known location, namely, the region in northern California
referred to as the North Coast or the North Coast Viticultural Area.
● Coastal Conservancy website (scc.ca.gov)59
North Coast
The California North Coast region extends from windswept
beaches in Del Norte County at the Oregon border,
southward some 370 miles through Humboldt, Mendocino
and Sonoma Counties, to the spectacular Marin headlands
overlooking San Francisco Bay and the Golden Gate
Bridge.60
● Visit California website (visitcalifornia.com)61
DISCOVER THE NORTH COAST
Romance finds a home in this idyllic coastal land, where
ocean fog rolls in from the ocean to blanket hushed redwood
forests. Along more than 100 miles of coast, artists set up
their easels to paint scenes of pounding surf, picturesque
headlands, and whitewashing cottages wrapped in rose-
filled gardens.62
● Wikipedia.org63
North Coast (California)

59 February 4, 2020 Office Action (TSDR 66-67). The Examining Attorney submitted this
website a second time in the May 18, 2020 Office Action (TSDR 108). Evidence does not
become more probative the more times the Examining Attorney submits it.
60 Id. at TSDR 66.
61 February 4, 2020 Office Action (TSDR 68-69).
62 Id. at TSDR 68.
63 Id. at TSDR 71-75. The Examining Attorney submitted this website a second time in the
May 18, 2020 Office Action (TSDR 109-112).
Serial No. 88662293

- 26 -

The North Coast of California (also called the Redwood
Empire or the Redwood Coast) is the region in Northern
California that lies on the Pacifica coast between the San
Francisco Bay and the Oregon border. It commonly
includes Mendocino, Humboldt, and Del Norte counties
and sometimes includes two counties from the San
Francisco Bay area, Marin and Sonoma.64
___
Geography
The Pacific Ocean coast stretches from San Francisco Bay
to Humboldt Bay and on to the border of Oregon.65
● Wikipedia.org66
North Coast AVA
The North Coast AVA is an American Viticultural Area in
the state of California that encompasses grape-growing
regions in six counties located north of San Francisco:
Lake, Marin, Mendocino, Napa, Sonoma, and Solano. This
large appellation covers over 3,000,000 acres (12,000 km)
and includes a number of smaller sub-appellations that all
share the common ecology trait of weather affected by the
cool fog and breezes of the Pacific Ocean.67
● Wikipedia.org68
List of American Viticultural Areas
Contents
___
California

64 Id. at TSDR 71.
65 Id. at TSDR 72.
66 Id. at TSDR 76-78.
67 Id. at TSDR 76.
68 February 27, 2020 Response to Office Action (TSDR 12-18).
Serial No. 88662293

- 27 -

___
North Coast
All of these AVAs are included within the geographical
boundaries of the six-county North Coast AVA.69
● Wine-Searcher website (wine-searcher.com)70
North Coast Wine
California’s North Coast AVA is vast, covering more than
3 million acres (1.2 million ha) of land to the north of San
Francisco. … [T]he area is home to some of the wine world’s
most valuable and distinctive real estate. The Napa Valley,
Sonoma Valley, Russian River, Stags Leap and Carneros
districts – the aristocracy of American wine – are all
located here in the North Coast.71
● Food Reference website (foodreference.com)72
California’s North Coast Wine Region
The North Coast region is a wine and food lover’s paradise
– a tranquil scene of picturesque landscapes with rolling
hills, sprawling vineyards and enchanting towns. The
region is known for its distinctive vineyards and wineries,
where visitors may enjoy an afternoon of wine tasting,
stroll through local art galleries, take in the redwood
forests and explore the rugged Pacifica Coastline. …
Regional Description: A Wine Mecca
The North Coast grape growing region is comprised of the
counties north of San Francisco including Lake, Marin,
Mendocino, Napa, Sonoma and Solano, and is also home to
more than 40 American Viticultural Areas (AVAs). The
region – which consists of coastal mountain ranges, rolling
hills, deep valleys and vast plains – produces some of the

69 Id. at TSDR 14.
70 February 4, 2020 Office Action (TSDR 79-84).
71 Id. at TSDR 79.
72 Id. at TSDR 100-102.
Serial No. 88662293

- 28 -

best grapes in the country. The North Coast forms a
slightly crooked rectangle approximately 100 miles long
and more than 50 miles wide from the Pacific Coast Ranges
in the northwest to the Blue Ridge Mountain Range in the
east to the San Pablo Bay in the South, encompassing more
than three million acres of land.73
● The Olive Experience website (oliveexperience.com)74
North Coast
The North Coast is home to the grape region that put
California on the map and encompasses Napa, Sonoma,
Mendocino, Lake, Solano, and Marin Counties. It’s a large
wine growing region that is home to more than half of the
state’s wineries and is also a designated AVA. Within this
AVA, many smaller, highly regarded growing regions and
AVAs exist.75
● Mendocino Wine Growers website (mendowine.com)76
North Coast
The North Coast AVA is an American Viticultural Area in
the state of California that encompasses grape-growing
regions in six counties located north of San Francisco. The
boundary of this AVA encompasses many smaller wine
appellations, which generally have higher consumer
appeal and therefore higher commercial value. … The
North Coast AVA designation is primarily used on bottles
of wine created by blending wines from several counties or
American Viticultural Areas.77

73 Id. at TSDR 100-101.
74 Id. at TSDR 103-104.
75 Id. at TSDR 103.
76 May 18, 2020 Office Action (TSDR 113).
77 Id.
Serial No. 88662293

- 29 -

● Gold Medal Wine Club website (goldmedalwineclub.com)78
North Coast AVA
California
The North California wine region often referred to as the
North Coast, includes Napa, Sonoma, Mendocino, Lake,
Solano and Marin Counties. This large area, 3,000,000
acres in size, is home to half of the state’s wineries. …
… In most cases[,] bottles produced in the North Coast
AVA will be labeled that way only if grapes from more than
one of the sub AVAs are blended, otherwise the labels will
most likely carry the appellation name instead.79
● Taste California Travel website (tastecaliforniatravel.com)80
Appellations of California Wine – North Coast
The North Coast American Viticultural Area (AVA) in
California, covering more than three million acres,
includes Napa, Sonoma, Mendocino and Lake counties, and
portions of Marin and Solano counties. The area forms a
slightly crooked triangle, approximately 100 miles long and
more than 50 miles wide. A winemaking mecca since the
mid 19th century, today the area features about 800
wineries, nearly half of the total wineries in the state.81
Applicant argues:
There are hundreds of “north coasts” in the United States,
one on each lake for example. There is no demonstration
shown and no evidence offered that any of the goods and
services are connected with a specific piece of land located
in California.82

78 Id. at TSDR 114.
79 Id.
80 Id. at TSDR 115-116.
81 Id. at TSDR 115.
82 Applicant’s Brief, p. 12 (4 TTABVUE 13).
Serial No. 88662293

- 30 -

First, Applicant’s argument directly contradicts the testimony in the Stroud
declaration where Applicant’s Vice President of Marketing attested to the fact that
the goods and services at issue originate in the North Coast of California.
Second, Applicant’s argument directly contradicts the above-noted evidence that
the North Coast is a noted wine growing region noted for its wineries.
Finally, Applicant did not introduce any evidence that there are multiple “north
coasts.” Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1799 (Fed. Cir.
2018) (“Attorney argument is no substitute for evidence.”). Assuming arguendo there
are multiple “north coasts,” the fact that the mark identifies more than one
geographic location does not necessarily detract from the term’s primary geographic
significance. See, e.g., In re Loew’s Theatres, Inc., 769 F.2d 764, 226 USPQ 865 (Fed.
Cir. 1985) (DURANGO held primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive of
chewing tobacco not grown in Durango, Mexico, where the evidence of record showed
that tobacco is a crop produced and marketed in that area, even though there is more
than one place named Durango); In re Cambridge Digital Sys., 1 USPQ2d 1659, 1662
(TTAB 1986) (CAMBRIDGE DIGITAL and design held primarily geographically
descriptive of computer systems and parts thereof, where applicant’s place of business
is Cambridge, Massachusetts, even though there is more than one Cambridge).
We find that the primary significance of “North Coast” is a generally known
geographical location.
Serial No. 88662293

- 31 -

B. Whether the goods and services originate from the “Northcoast.”

Melissa Phillips Stroud, Applicant’s Vice President of Sales and Marketing,
attested that the goods listed in the application at issue “will be manufactured,
packaged, shipped from, sold in or have an other [sic] connection with the North Coast
of California and originate in this AVA.”83 She also attested that the services listed
in the application “will be rendered in, or have an other [sic] connection with the
North coast [sic] of California.”84
We find that Applicant’s goods and services originate from the “North Coast.”
C. Whether purchasers would be likely to believe that the goods
and services originate in the “Northcoast.”

Finally, we address whether purchasers would likely believe that the goods and
services originate in the geographic location identified by “Northcoast” or “North
Coast” (i.e., “a goods/place association” or “services/place association”). The USPTO
needs to show “a reasonable predicate” for its conclusion that the public would be
likely to make the particular goods or services/place association. Newbridge Cutlery,
113 USPQ2d at 1449 (quoting In re Miracle Tuesday, LLC, 695 F.3d 1339,
104 USPQ2d 1330, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Pacer Tech., 338 F.3d 1348,
67 USPQ2d 1629, 1631 (Fed. Cir. 2003))); Loew’s Theatres, 226 USPQ at 868 (“The
PTO’s burden is simply to establish that there is a reasonable predicate for its
conclusion that the public would be likely to make the particular goods/place
association on which it relies.”).

83 Stroud Decl. ¶2 attached to the February 27, 2020 Response to Office Action (TSDR 9).
84 Id.
Serial No. 88662293

- 32 -

Where, as here, the geographic significance of a term is its primary significance
and the geographic place is neither obscure nor remote, for purposes of §2(e)(2), the
goods/place or services/place association may be presumed from the fact that the
applicant’s goods or services originate in or near the place named in the mark. In re
Spirits of New Merced, LLC, 85 USPQ2d 1614, 1621 (TTAB 2007) (YOSEMITE BEER
held geographically descriptive of beer produced and sold in a brewpub in Merced,
California, the Board stating that “[s]ince the goods originate at or near [Yosemite
National Park], we can presume an association of applicant’s beer with the park.”);
In re Joint-Stock Co. “Baik,” 80 USPQ2d 1305 (TTAB 2006) (BAIKALSKAYA – the
Russian equivalent of from Baikal or Baikal’s – held primarily geographically
descriptive of vodka made from water piped from Lake Baikal, the Board presuming
a goods/place association “because applicant is located near Lake Baikal, in the city
of Irkutsk.”); In re Cal. Pizza Kitchen Inc., 10 USPQ2d 1704 (TTAB 1988)
(CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN held primarily geographically descriptive of
restaurant services that originate in California); In re Handler Fenton Westerns, Inc.,
214 USPQ 848 (TTAB 1982) (DENVER WESTERNS held primarily geographically
descriptive of western-style shirts originating in Denver).
Accordingly, because, as noted above, we find that Applicant’s goods and services
originate in the North Coast of California, we presume that there is a goods/place and
services/place association among the consuming public.
C. Conclusion

Because the primary significance of “North Coast” is a known geographical
Serial No. 88662293

- 33 -

location, the goods and services at issue originate from the “North Coast,” and,
therefore, we presume there is a goods/place and services/place association, we find
that Applicant’s mark NORTHCOAST WINE CO. is primarily geographically
descriptive of the recited goods and services.
Because we have affirmed the refusal to register Applicant’s mark under Section
2(e)(2) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(2), we need not reach the merits of
the refusal under Sections 1, 2, 3, and 45 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051,
1052, 1053, and 1127, on the ground that Applicant’s mark NORTHCOAST WINE
CO. is a known grape growing region in the U.S. and, therefore, it is informational
matter to indicate wine originating from the North Coast of California. See Multisorb
Techs., Inc. v. Pactiv Corp., 109 USPQ2d 1170 (TTAB 2013).
Decision: We affirm the refusal to register Applicant’s mark NORTHCOAST
WINE CO. in connection with the goods in International Class 33 on the basis of
likelihood of confusion with the mark in Reg. No. 4925309 under Section 2(d) of the
Trademark Act.
We affirm the refusal to register Applicant’s mark NORTHCOAST WINE CO. in
connection with all the goods and services recited in the application under Section
2(e)(2) of the Trademark Act.