Federal Circuit disposition — 25-1530

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
IN RE MARINI Y COMPANIA, S.A.,
Appellant
______________________
2025-1530
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in Nos.
97533381, 97533403, 97548370, 97548401.
______________________
Decided: July 1, 2026
______________________
J OSEPH S. HEINO, Amundsen Davis LLC, Milwaukee,
WI, for appellant.
ERICA J EUNG D ICKEY , Office of the Solicitor, United
States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for
appellee John A. Squires. Also represented by N ICHOLAS
T HEODORE M ATICH , IV, ROBERT J. M CMANUS , MARY BETH
WALKER , G IULIO ERNESTO YAQUINTO.
______________________
Case: 25-1530 Document: 42 Page: 1 Filed: 07/01/2026

-- 1 of 7 --

IN RE MARINI Y COMPANIA, S. A. 2
Before H UGHES and C UNNINGHAM , Circuit Judges, and
BURROUGHS , District Judge.†
P ER CURIAM .
Marini y Compañía, S.A. appeals a decision of the
United States Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirm-
ing the refusals to register Marini y Compañía, S.A.’s MON
AMI marks. Marini y Compañía, S.A. challenges the
Board’s factual determinations as to the similarity of the
marks pursuant to DuPont factor one. Because the Board’s
determination that the MON AMI marks are similar to a
previously registered mark, AMÌ, is supported by substan-
tial evidence, we affirm.
I
In August 2022, Marini y Compañía, S.A. (Marini) ap-
plied to register the following marks:
MON AMI (in standard characters) for use with
“[e]dible pet treats” in International Class 31. U.S.
Trademark Application Serial No. 97/533,381 (filed
Aug. 3, 2022).
for use with “[e]dible pet treats” in
International Class 31. U.S. Trademark Applica-
tion Serial No. 97/533,403 (filed Aug. 3, 2022).
MON AMI NATURAL DOG TREAT (in standard
characters) (“Natural Dog Treat” disclaimed) for
use with “[e]dible pet treats made in whole or sub-
stantial part of natural ingredients” in Interna-
tional Class 31. In re Marini y Compañía, S.A.,
No. 97533381 et al., 2025 WL 270578, at *1 & n.3
† Honorable Allison D. Burroughs, District Judge,
United States District Court for the District of Massachu-
setts, sitting by designation.
Case: 25-1530 Document: 42 Page: 2 Filed: 07/01/2026

-- 2 of 7 --

IN RE MARINI Y COMPANIA, S. A. 3
(T.T.A.B. Jan. 8, 2025) (citing U.S. Trademark Ap-
plication Serial No. 97/548,370 (filed Aug. 15,
2022)).
(“Natural Dog Treat” disclaimed)
for use with “[e]dible pet treats
made in whole or substantial
part of natural ingredients” in International
Class 31. Id. at *1 & n.4 (citing U.S. Trademark
Application Serial No. 97/548,401 (filed Aug. 15,
2022)).
The Examining Attorney refused to register the marks
on the ground that the MON AMI marks, used in connec-
tion with the services above, were likely to be confused with
“AMÌ,” an unrelated registered mark. J.A. 280–86;
J.A. 809–15; J.A. 1396–1403; J.A. 2040–47. The “AMÌ”
mark is classified under “[f]oodstuffs for animals” in Inter-
national Class 31, which also includes the narrower “edible
pet treat” classifications used by the Marini marks. See In
re Marini, 2025 WL 270578, at *1, *3. Marini appealed the
final refusals by the Examining Attorney to the Board.
In its response to the first non-final office actions, and
in its request for reconsideration and appeal brief to the
Board, Marini cited to an English translation of “AMÌ.” Ma-
rini also cited to a prior statement by the registrant for
AMÌ in response to an English translation request in a sep-
arate proceeding, stating that:
In the Italian language both the trademark and
AMI cannot be translated into English. However,
we know that AMI (without an accent on I) (the
mark includes an accent on I) in French means
friend.
J.A. 91 n.1; J.A. 614 n.1; J.A. 1210 n.1; J.A. 1852 n.1.
Due to the four marks’ similarity, the Board addressed
all four appeals in one final decision. See In re Marini,
Case: 25-1530 Document: 42 Page: 3 Filed: 07/01/2026

-- 3 of 7 --

IN RE MARINI Y COMPANIA, S. A. 4
2025 WL 270578, at *2 (“[A]lthough the appeals have not
been formally consolidated, we will address all four appeals
in this opinion.”). The Board determined that all but the
sixth factor set out in In re E.I. DuPont DeNemours &
Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361 (C.C.P.A. 1973) weighed in favor
of likelihood of confusion. In re Marini, 2025 WL 270578,
at *2–14. The Board determined that factor six—the num-
ber and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods—
was neutral. Id. at *9–13. In evaluating the literal compo-
nents of the marks, the Board compared the AMÌ mark
with the following Marini mark, which the Board deter-
mined would have the most possible points of distinction
from the registered mark:
Id. at *2–3. Because the Board determined that the DuPont
factors favored a likelihood of confusion between this mark
and the AMÌ mark, it determined that the remaining three
marks (which the Board determined have fewer points of
distinction) would also likely be confused by consumers
with the registered AMÌ mark. Id. at *13–14.
Marini appeals. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(B).
II
Under the Lanham Act, a mark may be refused regis-
tration on the principal register if it is “likely, when used
on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause
confusion” with another’s registered mark. 15 U.S.C.
§ 1052(d). “Likelihood of confusion is a question of law with
underlying factual findings made pursuant to the DuPont
factors.” StonCor Grp., Inc. v. Specialty Coatings, Inc.,
759 F.3d 1327, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “Each of the [thir-
teen] DuPont factors presents a question of fact, findings
with regard to which we test for substantial evidence when
Case: 25-1530 Document: 42 Page: 4 Filed: 07/01/2026

-- 4 of 7 --

IN RE MARINI Y COMPANIA, S. A. 5
called into question on appeal.” Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio
Prods., Inc., 293 F.3d 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Substan-
tial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229
(1938). The Board need not consider every DuPont factor,
only those “that are relevant and of record.” M2 Software,
Inc. v. M2 Commc’ns, Inc., 450 F.3d 1378, 1382 (Fed. Cir.
2006).
III
On appeal, Marini primarily challenges the Board’s
factual findings as to DuPont factor one: the similarity of
the marks. The first DuPont factor assesses the “similarity
or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to ap-
pearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.”
DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361. “The proper test is not a side-by-
side comparison of the marks, but instead whether the
marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial
impression such that persons who encounter the marks
would be likely to assume a connection between the par-
ties.” Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC,
668 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (cleaned up). When
the goods at issue are identical, “the degree of similarity
necessary to support a conclusion of likely confusion de-
clines.” In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363 (Fed. Cir.
2012) (quoting Century 21 Real Est. Corp. v. Century Life
of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 877 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).
Marini’s challenges to DuPont factor one center around
(1) the Board’s treatment of the accent over the “I” in AMÌ
and (2) the word “MON.” Marini first argues that the Board
ignored the accent mark over the “I” in “AMÌ” and failed to
consider the AMÌ registrant’s full response to the Examin-
ing Attorney’s English translation request. In essence, Ma-
rini appears to argue that, because the AMÌ mark has a
grave accent mark and its registrant stated that it had no
literal translation from Italian to English, that it was
Case: 25-1530 Document: 42 Page: 5 Filed: 07/01/2026

-- 5 of 7 --

IN RE MARINI Y COMPANIA, S. A. 6
somehow error for the Board to find similarity with the
MON AMI mark, which does not include a grave accent
mark and which translates to “my friend” in English.
The Board, however, considered Marini’s arguments
regarding the accent mark, and properly relied on our prec-
edent in Viterra to conclude that “[e]ven were [the Board]
to assume that the registrant [of the AMÌ mark] intended
for the grave accent over the ‘I’ to have some sort of impact
on how consumers pronounce the word, it is also well set-
tled that ‘consumers may pronounce a mark differently
than intended by the brand owner.’” In re Marini, 2025 WL
270578, at *7 (quoting Viterra, 671 F.3d at 1367). Thus,
Marini’s challenges to the Board’s factual findings fail to
establish that the Board’s determination is unsupported by
substantial evidence.
Marini also argues that the Board failed to assign the
proper weight to “MON” in its marks, and “eliminated and
minimized its reference to the word ‘MON’ in the MON
AMI [m]arks whenever and however it could.” Appellant
Br. 16. But “[i]t is not improper for the Board to determine
that, for rational reasons, it should give more or less weight
to a particular feature of a mark.” QuikTrip W., Inc. v. Wei-
gel Stores, Inc., 984 F.3d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 2021)
(cleaned up). The Board relied on the fact that all of Ma-
rini’s marks contained translation statements that indi-
cated “MON AMI” means “my friend.” In re Marini,
2025 WL 270578, at *5. The Board declined to find that
“AMI” was the dominant feature when determining the
commercial impression created by Marini’s mark because
“the term ‘AMI’ means ‘friend’ in both marks, and ‘MON’
adds nothing to the impression of [Marini’s] mark except to
reinforce that meaning.” Id. at *6. The Board further
found, whether “AMI” or “MON AMI” is the “dominant lit-
eral portion of Applicant’s mark,” the mark’s “meaning is
similar to the word AMI in the registered mark.” Id. On
appeal, Marini’s arguments fail to identify any reversible
Case: 25-1530 Document: 42 Page: 6 Filed: 07/01/2026

-- 6 of 7 --

IN RE MARINI Y COMPANIA, S. A. 7
error in the Board’s analysis. Cf. Consol. Edison, 305 U.S.
at 229.
IV
We have considered Marini’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. The Board’s factual findings
are supported by substantial evidence, and Marini fails to
demonstrate otherwise. For the reasons above, we affirm
the Board’s decision.
AFFIRMED
Costs
Costs to Appellee.
Case: 25-1530 Document: 42 Page: 7 Filed: 07/01/2026

-- 7 of 7 --