In re Marini y Compañía — Federal Circuit Affirms TTAB Refusal of ‘Mon Ami’ Dog Treat Marks Over Likelihood of Confusion with ‘AMÌ’

Background

Marini y Compañía, S.A., an Argentine company, sought U.S. trademark protection for four marks used on edible pet treats in International Class 31. Two marks were word marks — “MON AMI” and “MON AMI NATURAL DOG TREAT” — and two were design marks combining the phrase with stylized text. Marini applied to register all four in August 2022.

The USPTO Examining Attorney refused all four applications, finding a likelihood of confusion with the previously registered mark “AMÌ” (with a grave accent over the I), which is also classified in International Class 31 for “foodstuffs for animals.” Marini appealed to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), which consolidated the four appeals and ruled against Marini in January 2025. The TTAB found that all but one of the thirteen DuPont likelihood-of-confusion factors weighed in favor of confusion, with factor six (number of similar marks in use on similar goods) deemed neutral. Marini then appealed to the Federal Circuit.

The Court’s Holding

The Federal Circuit affirmed per curiam. Marini’s primary challenge targeted DuPont factor one — the similarity of the marks in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. Marini made two specific arguments: (1) the TTAB ignored the grave accent mark over the “I” in “AMÌ,” which Marini contended distinguished the marks phonetically and conceptually; and (2) the TTAB improperly minimized the word “MON” in Marini’s marks.

The court found both arguments unpersuasive. On the accent mark, the TTAB had expressly considered the argument and correctly applied Federal Circuit precedent from In re Viterra Inc., which holds that consumers may pronounce a mark differently than the brand owner intends — so an unusual accent cannot reliably distinguish marks in the marketplace. On the “MON” argument, the court noted that the Board has discretion to give more or less weight to any element of a composite mark, and the TTAB’s reasoning was sound: in both marks, the French word “AMI” (or “AMÌ”) means “friend,” and adding “MON” (“my”) to get “my friend” does not meaningfully differentiate the commercial impression. Both marks communicate the concept of friendship, which is precisely the kind of connotational similarity that likelihood-of-confusion analysis is designed to catch.

Because the goods at issue (edible pet treats) are identical or closely related for both marks, the court noted that a lesser degree of mark similarity suffices to support a likelihood-of-confusion finding — a standard the TTAB applied correctly.

Key Takeaways

• Accent marks and diacriticals (like the grave accent in “AMÌ”) generally do not suffice to distinguish marks from otherwise similar ones, because consumers routinely ignore or mispronounce such details.
• When the goods in competing trademark applications are identical or overlapping, the likelihood-of-confusion bar is lower — even marks with modest visual differences can be found confusingly similar.
• Applicants facing refusals based on marks that share the same core meaning (here, “friend”) in the same or related languages cannot escape confusion findings by adding a possessive pronoun or other minor modifier.
• The TTAB retains broad discretion in weighing individual DuPont factors; on appeal, the Federal Circuit will reverse only where a factor finding is unsupported by substantial evidence, which is a deferential standard.

Why It Matters

This nonprecedential decision reinforces the Federal Circuit’s consistent approach to likelihood-of-confusion challenges in TTAB appeals: the panel defers heavily to the Board’s factual findings and will not reweigh evidence on appeal. For trademark applicants in the pet products space — a crowded market with many overlapping registrations — the case serves as a reminder that foreign-language terms with shared meanings across related languages (Spanish, French, Italian) are vulnerable to confusion findings, especially when the registered mark is also a foreign word with a similar semantic core. Companies seeking to register marks in markets where their competitors may have prior registrations in cognate or translated terms should conduct thorough clearance searches across related languages before filing.