Etablissements Leon Rigault, 31 U. In fact, if Gallo Nero sought to register its name as a trademark, it would fall into the same class of goods as Gallo's trademarks. See 37 C. Gallo Nero in opposition contends that the wines themselves are distinct, one produced in Italy while the other in the United States. Moreover, Gallo Nero's members produce only chianti wines, whereas Gallo effectively produces everything but Italian chianti.
However, Gallo Nero cites no authority for finding a distinction between the wines produced by the parties, and representatives of Gallo Nero have themselves stated that Gallo Nero wines distributed in the United States are "in competition with every red wine that is being produced.
Therefore, the Court finds that the goods produced by Gallo and Gallo Nero are substantially similar for purposes of establishing a likelihood of confusion. Both parties market their products through retail establishments like wine shops and liquor stores, and utilize magazines for advertizing purposes.
Gallo Nero effectively does not dispute Gallo's showing on this issue; indeed, Gallo Nero notes use of the same retail establishment in Washington, D. Moreover, the above deposition testimony that Gallo Nero wines are in direct competition with those of other producers also supports a finding that the wines are marketed by similar means. Therefore the Court finds as a matter of law that both parties use similar marketing channels to distribute their wines.
Grey v. Campbell Soup Co. Canarsie Kiddie Shop, Inc. Wine has been deemed an "impulse" product, and certainly so with respect to the average consumer, effectively compelling the consumer's reliance "on faith in the maker.
Bully Hill Vineyards, Inc. Indeed, Gallo Nero employees themselves have testified that the average American consumer is unlearned in the selection of wine. Powers exh. E, at The only opposition Gallo Nero offers to Gallo's characterization of the wine-buying public is a single case from the Middle District of Alabama, stating that "the wine-buying public insofar as their selection and purchase of wine is concerned is a highly discriminating group. Ben R.
On balance then, the Court finds that Gallo Nero has failed to contest either through evidence or legal support the characterization of the wine-buying public as generally unsophisticated "impulse" buyers who are an "easy mark for a [trademark] infringer. Therefore the Court finds that the lack of consumer sophistication significantly enhances the likelihood of confusion between the two products. Eclipse, F. Thus evidence of actual confusion "is merely one factor to be considered Park 'N Fly, Inc.
Dollar Park and Fly, Inc. Therefore, at a minimum, the absence of actual confusion will not defeat an otherwise successful claim of infringement by Gallo as this Court must find only a likelihood of confusion. Gallo Nero relies in significant part on the survey conducted by Dr. In the survey, individual participants were shown an array of eight bottles of red wine, including two bottles of Gallo wines and two bottles of Gallo Nero wines.
Participants were then asked a series of questions designed to assess the likelihood of "point-of-sale" confusion as to the source of the respective wines. Jacoby found "only a trivial level of likely confusion as to source among these consumers," as "only three of the respondents 1.
Gallo in response contends that the survey itself is irrelevant, and that even if it were, only 10 of the respondents even referred to the neck seal. Moreover, Gallo emphasizes that failure to show "actual" confusion under survey conditions is not dispositive of an infringement claim. Indeed, Gallo notes that it would be impossible at this stage to show actual confusion other than in the artificial setting of a survey as Gallo Nero has not sold a single bottle of wine in the U.
In that survey, respondents were shown the neck seal with the "Consorzio del Gallo Nero" designation, and another were shown the advertisement which appeared in the Wine Spectator in Numerous courts hold a side-by-side comparison like the one conducted by Dr. Jacoby to be legally irrelevant in determining whether defendant's use of a similar mark leads to a finding of a likelihood of confusion. Elizabeth Taylor Cosmetics Co.
Blue Bell, Inc. Sign of Beefeater, Inc. Based on the foregoing, it would seem that Gallo Nero's survey evidence is irrelevant to the issue of infringement and that Gallo's own evidence is both relevant and dispositive.
On the other hand, other authorities maintain that the proper survey evidence is that which attempts to most closely replicate the marketplace setting in which consumers will typically encounter the competing marks.
Lindy Pen Co. Under such a view, then clearly the Gallo Nero survey has relevance in gauging a likelihood of consumer confusion when confronted with bottles of wine sporting the "Consorzio del Gallo Nero" name. On summary judgment, drawing all inferences in the non-movant's favor, the Court finds nonetheless that there is some evidence of a likelihood of confusion under both surveys, even if the Jacoby Survey results in only a "trivial" showing.
Moreover, even accepting that Gallo has overstated the results of its own survey, the "adjusted" statistics nonetheless establish that, again, there is some evidence of a likelihood of confusion as to source when a consumer is presented with the allegedly infringing "Gallo Nero" name.
Just as with actual confusion, a showing of intent is not necessary to support a finding of a likelihood of confusion. However, where an infringer adopts a particular name with knowledge of plaintiff's mark, courts presume that there was an intent to copy the mark. AMF, Inc. City Bank of San Francisco, U. The record here establishes that Gallo Nero was aware of the "Gallo" mark prior to beginning its U. See Schmid Depo. Gallo Nero in opposition contends that there was no intent to infringe Gallo's marks because the adoption of the "Gallo Nero" name was made in good faith and for sound business reasons.
The Court readily acknowledges the extensive and colorful tradition surrounding the relation between the "Gallo Nero" symbol and the Chianti region of Italy. Moreover, neither the Court nor Gallo has any qualms with Gallo Nero's continued use of the black rooster symbol to identify and distinguish its products in the U.
However, the present issue is not whether Gallo Nero had admirable motivations when it initially adopted its name in , but whether Gallo Nero had knowledge of the potentially infringing effect its use of the "Gallo Nero" and "Consorzio del Gallo Nero" marks would have when it entered the U. The record establishes that Gallo Nero was so aware, and while there may be a question whether such knowledge rises to the level of willful infringement or bad faith, see General Mills, Inc.
Kellogg Co. Corning Glass Works, F. Balancing the foregoing factors, the Court concludes that Gallo has established as a matter of law that it is entitled to summary judgment on its trademark infringement claim. Clearly the "Gallo" mark is a mighty fortress in the U.
Compounded with defendant's knowledge that its use of the term "Gallo" in any combination would be deemed an infringement by Gallo if not, in fact, by a federal district court and some evidence showing a likelihood of confusion, the foregoing is sufficient to find that defendant's use of the term "Gallo" in conjunction with the promotion and sale of its wines in the United States would lead to a likelihood of consumer confusion with Gallo's products.
Gallo Nero's opposition is based in large part on its contention that since it has voluntarily discontinued all use of the "Gallo" term as of earlier this month, plaintiff's motion is effectively moot. However, as the Ninth Circuit has noted,.
Polo Fashions, Inc. Dick Bruhn, Inc. In the present case, Gallo Nero's past conduct does not reasonably ensure continued adherence to its present position. Gallo Nero commenced its U. Moreover, throughout the present action and its own cross-motion for summary judgment, Gallo Nero has continued to maintain that it may legitimately use the "Gallo Nero" mark within certain guidelines which await this Court's approval.
In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that Gallo Nero's continued non-use of the "Gallo Nero" name is not assured, and therefore injunctive relief is warranted. Moreover, even if the Court does Gallo Nero a disservice in reaching this conclusion, issuance of the injunction will not likewise do Gallo Nero any harm.
Therefore the present motion is not rendered moot by Gallo Nero's voluntary discontinued use of the "Gallo Nero" mark. Gallo Nero contends that Gallo has permitted the continued use of the "Gallo Nero" name in connection with the U. Therefore Gallo Nero contends that Gallo's "unreasonable delay" in bringing the present action provides Gallo Nero with a laches defense to Gallo's present attempt to enforce its trademark rights.
Specifically, Gallo Nero contends that the continued display since of its wines and a large poster bearing the term "gallo nero" in a single liquor store in downtown Washington D. A critical element of a laches defense in an action for trademark infringement is establishing the junior user's detrimental reliance on the senior user's delay in enforcing its rights to the mark. American Int'l Group, Inc. American Int'l Bank, F. More significantly, the display in the Mayflower Shop itself had been constructed without Gallo Nero's knowledge, see Lanzoni Depo.
Therefore Gallo Nero's laches defense is without merit. Moreover, as it does not raise a genuine issue of material fact, it does not preclude the granting of summary judgment in Gallo's favor. Gallo claims dilution of its "Gallo" mark under California Business and Professional Code section Aggiudicata la gara per la selezione di un Organismo di esecuzione incaricato della realizzazione delle azioni del progetto MEET.
Sono arrivati i primi centesimi a premiare un vino del Gallo Nero: la Gran Selezione fa cent r o! Tutela del territorio e valorizzazione dei suoi beni artistici, culturali e ambientali: questa la missione della Fondazione per la Tutela del Territorio del Chianti Classico — Onlus.
Ricevi in anteprima notizie, eventi e aggiornamenti via email. Teniamo alla tua privacy: non ti invieremo mai spam e potrai cancellarti in qualsiasi momento con un semplice click. Registrati adesso! Accetta le condizioni di cui alla gestione dei propri dati personali comuni.
La Guida del Gambero Rosso, che attribuisce gli ambiti Tre Bicchieri, come punteggio massimo, ha premiato 24 Chianti Classico, un record nella storia della denominazione e un record in ambito regionale. Italiano English Inglese. Click here for the story of why the gallo nero is the symbol of Chianti. The courts ruled that the Consorzio's members cannot use the black rooster symbol nor the words "gallo nero" on wine sold outside of Europe. Two kinds of Chianti Classico wine are available on the market: Standard and Riserva.
The Consorzio Vino Chianti Classico has recently released a new Chianti Classico wine logo as well as adding a new quality level above Riserva. It's unclear whether this new quality level will be widely adopted among members of the Consorzio where the concept has been unpopular. Click here for a map of the Gallo Nero zone. Click here for Chianti Classico winery vacation rentals, agriturismi, Tuscan farm houses with pool to rent and for wine tasting tours in Chianti.
Chianti Italy. Tuscany Wine Tours and Wine Tasting. Wine tasting tours in Tuscany. Tuscany Wine Tours Information. Expert commentary in English throughout your wine tour.
More about Giovanni's Tuscan wine tours. Tuscan wine tours Chianti and Montalcino wine tours with Angela Angela Saltafuori from Florence, your professional, English-speaking, licensed tour guide ready to accompany you on enjoyable and interesting whole day wine tours by air-conditioned minibus during your visit to Tuscany. More about Angela's Tuscan wine tours. Chianti, the area in which the precursor of the Chianti Classico wine has been produced for centuries, is that part of Tuscany that is bordered to the north by the suburbs of Florence, to the east by the Chianti Mountains, to the south by the city of Sienna and to the west by the valleys of the Pesa river and the Elsa river Val d'Elsa.
The area is traversed by the Via Chiantigiana. It is a land of ancient traditions that was civilised long ago first by the Etruscans, who left many traces of their activity in the wine sector, and then by the Romans. In the Middle Ages, the cities of Florence and Siena battled for control over the zone. Villages and monasteries , castles and fortresses appeared during that period and many of them were later transformed into villas and country residences when times were more tranquil.
It was then that spaces were cleared in the vast forests of chestnuts and oaks for the cultivation of vines and olive trees, an activity that progressively assumed major economic importance and established an international reputation.
0コメント