E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Grenade Beverage, LLC
670 F. App'x 634
9th Cir.2016Background
- E. & J. Gallo Winery (Gallo) sued Grenade over use of the mark “El Gallo,” alleging likelihood of confusion with its “Gallo” mark in the beverage market.
- The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings that multiple Sleekcraft factors favored Gallo and enjoined Grenade; this appeal followed.
- The Ninth Circuit applies the eight Sleekcraft factors (similarity, relatedness, mark strength, marketing channels, purchaser care, defendant intent, actual confusion, expansion likelihood) to assess likelihood of confusion.
- The court found the marks similar because both share the dominant word “Gallo.”
- The court found the Gallo mark strong, product overlap in the beverage industry, low price points (reducing purchaser care), and evidence of actual confusion, all supporting a likelihood of confusion.
- Grenade challenged the admissibility and probative value of the alleged actual-confusion evidence; the panel noted failure to prove actual confusion is not dispositive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Grenade’s “El Gallo” creates a likelihood of confusion with Gallo’s mark | Gallo: Marks are similar; several Sleekcraft factors (mark strength, related products, low price, actual confusion) support confusion | Grenade: Actual-confusion anecdotes are inadmissible/insufficient and do not show likely confusion | Court: Affirmed; majority of Sleekcraft factors favor Gallo and evidence (even if imperfect) supports likelihood of confusion |
Key Cases Cited
- Brookfield Commc’ns, Inc. v. W. Coast Entm’t Corp., 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999) (describing Sleekcraft factors for likelihood of confusion)
- AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979) (articulating the eight-factor test used in trademark confusion analysis)
- La Quinta Worldwide LLC v. Q.R.T.M., S.A. de C.V., 762 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 2014) (similarity analysis where shared dominant word supported confusion)
- E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Gallo Cattle Co., 967 F.2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1992) (finding similarity where “Gallo” was the dominant element and low price reduces purchaser care)
- Levi Strauss & Co. v. Blue Bell, Inc., 778 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc) (standard of review for Sleekcraft factor evaluation)