- Cointreau says Canadian hashish firm buying and selling off of liqueur’s identify
- Quatreau accused of being confusingly comparable, bought by means of comparable shops
(Reuters) – The maker of Cointreau orange liqueur sued Canadian hashish firm Cover Progress in Manhattan federal court docket on Friday, alleging Cover’s “Quatreau” CBD-infused glowing water infringes and dilutes its logos.
The similarity of their names, the gross sales of the drinks by means of the identical channels, and Cointreau’s plans to promote non-alcoholic drinks make Cover’s model more likely to trigger shopper confusion, Cointreau Corp mentioned in its complaint.
Cointreau’s French mum or dad firm Remy Cointreau and its attorneys Jeanne Hamburg, Bruce Londa, and David Siegel of Norris McLaughlin did not instantly reply to a request for remark, and neither did Cover.
The grievance says Cointreau was created in 1849 and has been bought within the U.S. since 1885. In keeping with the grievance, over 4 million bottles of the liqueur have been bought within the U.S. final yr.
Cover launched Quatreau within the U.S. in March. Cointreau mentioned Cover selected the identify to commerce off of its popularity, instructing clients to pronounce it as “kwatro” — which is an identical to “Cointreau” minus the letter “n”.
The grievance mentioned that Quatreau will trigger confusion with Cointreau primarily based on their aural similarity, use of “treau”, and gross sales in the identical bars, eating places and shops.
Cointreau additionally mentioned Cover plans so as to add THC to Quatreau — which it already does in Canada — as quickly as it’s authorized within the U.S., which might make it extra more likely to trigger confusion as a result of THC-infused drinks are “intoxicating and sometimes consumed for these results simply as alcoholic drinks are.”
Cointreau mentioned additionally it is “actively contemplating” promoting non-alcoholic drinks within the U.S., calling it a “logical extension” of its model.
“Thus, not solely will merchandise bearing the Cointreau Mark seem alongside Quatreau CBD merchandise on the identical cabinets within the market, however customers acknowledge that each Cointreau and Quatreau waters could possibly be bought,” the grievance mentioned. “Such circumstances exemplify the Defendants’ intention to commerce off the market dominance and fame of the Cointreau mark.”
The case is Cointreau Corp v. Cover Progress USA LLC, U.S. District Courtroom for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:21-cv-05921.
For Cointreau: Jeanne Hamburg, Bruce Londa, and David Siegel of Norris McLaughlin
For Cover: N/A