appreciable number of consumers, knowing the source of the products are different,associate the names CRISTALINO and CRISTAL, diluting the distinctiveness of thefamous brand. In both instances, Defendants trade on the fame and renown of CRISTAL.The Defendants’ use of CRISTALINO on their sparkling wine product is anillegitimate brand extension that trades on the reputation and image of the famous mark,CRISTAL. Consumers likely believe that CRISTALINO sparkling wine is associatedwith, sponsored by, or is in some way connected with the maker of the prestigechampagne CRISTAL. Without consent, Defendants are the beneficiaries of thegoodwill in CRISTAL, built over generations, as a consequence of their use of the nameCRISTALINO. That is trademark infringement.
See Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Balducci Publ’ns,
28 F.3d 769, 774 (8th Cir. 1994);
General Mills, Inc. v. Kellogg Co.
, 824 F.2d622, 626 (8th Cir. 1987).Roederer is entitled to exclusive control over the reputation and image of itsfamous mark, CRISTAL, and the consuming public is entitled to be free of confusion,mistake and deception.
Burrough Ltd. v. Sign of the Beefeater
, 540 F.2d 266,274 (7th Cir. 1976);
Real News Project, Inc. v. Indep. World TV, Inc.
, No. 06 Civ 4322,2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41457, *71-72 (S.D.N.Y. May 27, 2008);
Weight Watchers Int’l v. The Stouffer Corp.
, 744 F. Supp. 1259, 1269 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). The fact that the parties’ products are not directly competitive, and that the purchaser of an inexpensive bottle of CRISTALINO sparkling wine knows he or she has not purchased an expensive bottle of French champagne, is of no moment. Product confusion is not the issue. The
Case 0:06-cv-00213-JNE-SRN Document 226 Filed 01/04/10 Page 2 of 18