Wines and vodka are both alcoholic beverages—but, because of the breadth of the category of “alcoholic beverages,” that does not mean they automatically should be considered to be related goods for trademark purposes. Compare In re White Rock Distilleries, Inc., No. 77093221, 2009 WL 3401827, at *3 (TTAB 2009) (“Although vodka and wine may both be described generally as ‘alcoholic beverages,' this is insufficient to establish that applicant's and registrant's goods are related.”) (citation omitted) with In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“we agree … that malt liquor and tequila are similar by virtue of the fact that both are alcoholic beverages that are marketed in many of the same channels of trade to many of the same consumers”). 

Relatedness of goods for a likelihood of confusion analysis under trademark law may be established when there is evidence that the goods are “complementary,” i.e., they are, or can be, used together for a certain purpose. See, e.g., In re Martin's Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Int'l Diagnostic Tech., Inc. v. Miles Labs., Inc., 746 F.2d 798, 800 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Key Chems., Inc. v. Kelite Chems. Corp., 464 F.2d 1040, 1042 (CCPA 1972). Relatedness of separate goods also can be established where several companies offer those goods under the same mark. See, e.g., Naterra Int'l, Inc. v. Bensalem, 92 F.4th 1113, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2024); In re Detroit Athl. Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In the same vein, another way to show relatedness is where third parties have registered the same mark for both types of goods. See, e.g., Made in Nature, LLC v. Pharmavite LLC, No. 91223352, 2022 WL 2188890, at *24 (TTAB 2022); In re Country Oven, Inc., No. 87354443, 2019 WL 6170483, at *5 (TTAB 2019); see also In re Halo Leather Ltd., 735 F. App'x 722, 727 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 

For BLACK SWAN vodka, even though the TTAB had previously found that vodka and wine were not related over fifteen years earlier in White Rock Distilleries, the TTAB found that vodka and wine were related based on a different evidentiary record showing "that wines and vodka are used together in several mixed-drink beverages." In re Robert Sulic, Ser. Nos. 79375327 & 79375609 (TTAB Jan. 7, 2025) ("Market circumstances are not static. They change and evolve over time."). There also was evidence of a dozen companies selling both wine and vodka under the same mark, as well as eighteen third-party registrations to use the same mark for both vodka and wine. And websites of third-party companies that make and sell both vodka and wine supported finding that "the trade channels overlap at least to that extent."

For the TTAB, no prior decision's factfinding controls a case with different facts and evidence. See, e.g., Curtice-Burns, Inc. v. Nw. Sanitation Prods., Inc., 530 F.2d 1396, 1399 (CCPA 1976) (“[A]s we shall evidently have to continue saying ad nauseam: … prior decisions on other marks for other goods are of very little help one way or the other in cases of this type. Each case must be decided on its own facts and the differences are often subtle ones.”) (cleaned up; citation omitted). In addition, the USPTO “is required to examine all trademark applications for compliance with each and every eligibility requirement ….” In re Cordua Rests., Inc., 823 F.3d 594, 600 (Fed. Cir. 2016).