In a significant ruling for the spirits industry, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the validity of Sazerac’s trademark for its Fireball cinnamon whisky, rejecting claims from Baltimore-based distiller Bullshine. The court ruled on Wednesday that “Fireball” is a distinctive and non-generic brand name, reaffirming its protection under trademark law. The decision also found that Bullshine’s “Firebull” trademark for its alcoholic beverages does not create confusion among consumers.
The ruling comes after Bullshine applied for a federal trademark for its “Firebull” brand in 2015, covering “alcoholic beverages except beers.” Sazerac, which has held the trademark for Fireball since its inception, opposed the application, arguing that “Firebull” could cause consumer confusion due to its similarity to Fireball. In response, Bullshine sought to cancel Sazerac’s Fireball trademark, claiming the name was a generic term for a spicy alcoholic drink reminiscent of Atomic Fireball candy.
The U.S. Trademark Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board initially sided with Sazerac, rejecting both the challenge to the Fireball trademark and Bullshine’s application for Firebull. The Federal Circuit’s decision on Wednesday affirmed that ruling, with the court agreeing that Fireball is a valid trademark that is not a mere generic descriptor for a spicy flavored alcohol.
The court also agreed with the Trademark Office’s finding that the names “Fireball” and “Firebull” are sufficiently different to avoid consumer confusion, effectively allowing both brands to coexist.
The case, Bullshine Distillery LLC v. Sazerac Brands LLC, was decided under case number 23-1682 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Read more:
