The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court's ruling in a trademark dispute between Roar Spirits, LLC and Sutter Home Winery, Inc. This decision affects both companies in the alcohol industry, as it allows Roar to continue its efforts to register two trademarks that Sutter claimed were too similar to its own. The case highlights the complexities of trademark law and the importance of distinguishing between similar brand names.

Roar Spirits, formerly known as El Bandido Yankee LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company that produces alcoholic beverages. Sutter Home Winery is a California corporation known for its wide range of wines. The dispute began when Roar applied to register two trademarks: the word mark EL BANDIDO YANKEE and the composite mark EL BANDIDO YANKEE TEQUILA COMPANY BLANCO. Sutter opposed these registrations, arguing that they were likely to cause confusion with its own registered mark, BANDIT.

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board initially sided with Sutter, leading Roar to seek a de novo review in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Sutter, prompting Roar to appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The case was filed under docket number 25-2301 and was argued on October 21, 2026.

The Ninth Circuit's ruling reversed the district court's decision, stating that a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the trademarks in question were dissimilar enough to avoid consumer confusion. The court noted, "A reasonable factfinder could conclude that the marks are dissimilar." It emphasized that the difference in appearance, meaning, and sound of the marks was significant enough to warrant further examination.

The court also pointed out that the district court had erred by ignoring evidence of a lack of actual confusion in the marketplace. The Ninth Circuit highlighted that Roar and Sutter's products had coexisted for several years without reported confusion among consumers. Roar's Chief Financial Officer testified that the company sold nearly 30,000 cases of tequila from 2021 to 2024, while Sutter's President and CEO reported sales of over a million cases during the same period.

Additionally, Roar provided survey evidence indicating that none of the 112 consumers surveyed identified Sutter as the source of Roar's tequila. The Ninth Circuit criticized the lower court for dismissing this survey evidence, stating that it could be persuasive in determining the likelihood of confusion.

The ruling is significant because it sets a precedent for how trademark disputes are evaluated, particularly in cases involving likelihood of confusion. The Ninth Circuit's decision underscores the importance of examining the distinctiveness of trademarks and the actual market conditions in which they operate. It also emphasizes that summary judgment is rarely appropriate in likelihood-of-confusion cases, as these matters often hinge on factual determinations.

Moving forward, this ruling allows Roar Spirits to continue its trademark registration process, potentially paving the way for greater brand recognition in the alcohol market. The decision may also influence future trademark disputes, particularly in the alcohol industry, where brand names and consumer perceptions are critical to success.

As for what’s next, it is unclear whether Sutter Home Winery will seek to appeal the Ninth Circuit's decision. There may also be related cases pending, but details were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case could have broader implications for trademark law and how companies protect their brand identities in a competitive marketplace.