In the past month, Duck Commander has gone duck wild!  Most are familiar with the dispute between A&E and Duck Commander.  However, there is a more interesting trademark dispute proceeding before the United States District Court Northern District of California.  In particular Duckhorn Wine Company, through their trademark attorneys, accused Duckhorn Trademark ExampleSutter Home Winery of treading upon Duckhorn’s trademark rights.

In response to Duckhorn’s cease and desist letter, the trademark attorneys for Duck Commander filed a declaratory action against Duckhorn Wine Company.

[1]  Remarkably, Duckhorn’s previous trademark attorneys obtained a permanent injunction against Hill Wine Company that prevents Hill Wine prominently featuring the word “Duck” on their wine bottles.  It should be noted, however, in that case the permanent injunction stemmed from a consent decree.  In other words, Hill Wine agreed to cease using the word Duck and change their wine label in order to avoid expending funds to fight for the use of the word “Duck”, when the use of “Duck” was inconsequential to Hill Wine’s wine.  In all likelihood, Hill Wine’s trademark attorney convinced them to save their money and change their label.

It should be obvious that Hill Wine had no real interest in fighting for the use of the word Duck Commander Trademark Example “Duck”.  In the instant case, however, Duck Commander’s entire brand is based on the use of the word “Duck”.  Duck Commander’s attorneys wrote to Duckhorn and very reasonably put Duckhorn on notice that the word “Duck” and the use of a duck is generic.  And for that reason, Duckhorn does not have a monopoly on the word “DUCK” as to wine.

In fact, Duck Commander’s trademark attorneys point out a list of wines and alcoholic Duck products, including:

  • BLACK DUCK
  • DUCK DOWN
  • BANDED DUCK
  • ORTHODUCKS
  • MAD DUCK
  • LONG DUCK
  • SITTING DUCKS
  • CHICKEN DUCK
  • LUCKY DUCK
  • DUCK TAPE
  • DUCK DUCK GOOSE
  • GREEN DUCK
  • DUCKWORTH WINERY
  • DUCK SHACK
  • UGLY DUCKING
  • WILD DUCK CREEK ESTATE
  • DUCK MUCK
  • DUCK POND

It is quite interesting that Duckhorn’s trademark attorneys accused Duck Commander of trademark infringement because, despite that both products are wine related, they appear to be targeting different audiences, not to mention the fact that trademark infringement does not appear to exist.  Duckhorn appears to be marketed as a premium class of wine, whereas, Duck Commander is marketed towards the consuming members of Wal-Mart.  It will be interesting to see how this case proceeds.

Do you or your business need a trademark attorney to file a trademark application, or litigate a trademark dispute? If so, contact South Florida Trademark Attorney Matthew Sean Tucker at Tucker Law.  Trademark Attorney Matthew Sean Tucker has represented clients throughout the United States and Worldwide.  Call the Firm toll-free at 1-844-4-TUCKER or send us an email through the Firm’s website.  A firm trademark attorney will contact you for a free consultation.

 

[1] Case No. 3-13-cv-05526-MEJ filed on November 27, 2013.