⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Ninth Circuit hears Roar Spirits versus Sutter Home Winery. Roar sells El Bandido Yankee tequila. Sutter sells BANDIT boxed wine, but its federal trademark registration covers alcoholic beverages except beer, including tequila. Sutter opposed Roar's applications to register a word mark and a design mark, arguing that consumers could confuse them with BANDIT. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board sided with Sutter. Roar then sought review in federal district court, adding evidence including a consumer survey, but lost on summary judgment. That means the judge decided the case without a trial, finding no genuine dispute over facts that could change the result. Roar's lawyer will argue that the names, market conditions and evidence of other BANDIT-related brands present factual disputes requiring a trial. Sutter's lawyer will argue that the registration descriptions govern much of the comparison and that Roar's evidence is legally insufficient. The dispute concerns registration, not an order to stop selling the tequila. The lawyers discuss the Sleekcraft factors: a multi-part test for likely consumer confusion, including brand similarity, related goods and the strength of the earlier mark. De novo means fresh review, rather than deference to the earlier decision.

Roar Spirits v. Sutter Home Winery (No. 25-2301) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 21, 2026.