Champagne Wishes And Caviar Dreams – Can Two CAVIAR Marks For Jewelry Coexist? (Update)

A Boston‑based jewelry brand, now reintroduced as CLUB COASTAL, illustrates that resolving one trademark dispute does not prevent another. As discussed in our prior post, the conflict between Lagos and Coastal Caviar centered on the shared use of CAVIAR for jewelry, raising questions about similarity of marks, market overlap, and scope of protection for CAVIAR as a trademark for jewelry. That dispute has since been settled. So, the answer to the various questions may not be known. Further, Coastal Caviar started moving forward under a new name.

But the shift to CLUB COASTAL presents a different issue—one that highlights the importance of clearance prior to adoption of a new trademark.

Coastal Caviar has filed new applications for CLUB COASTAL covering clothing and online retail store services featuring clothing and jewelry. However, existing registrations for COASTAL (covering clothing and corresponding retail services) and COASTAL and Design (covering jewelry) are owned by third parties.

CLUB COASTAL may be viewed as confusingly similar to these prior marks:

• The dominant term of each mark may be considered COASTAL;
• CLUB may be perceived as a modifier rather than a meaningful point of distinction;
• The goods and services, clothing, jewelry, and related retail, may be considered similar or related.

As a result, CLUB COASTAL could be found confusingly similar to the prior registered marks. Further, Coastal Caviar could find itself in a case of déjà vu all over again if an owner of the prior registered marks raises an objection. 

This underscores a familiar but often overlooked principle: rebranding does not eliminate risk if the new mark has not been cleared. Even where a brand is moving away from one dispute, it may step directly into another if the new name overlaps with existing third‑party rights. That makes clearance essential before filing, launching, or investing in a new name. At a minimum, that analysis should consider:

• Prior registered and applied‑for marks using the same dominant term;
• Whether additional wording meaningfully distinguishes the mark;
• The relatedness of goods and services; and
• The availability of a mark not already crowded by similar uses.

Clearance can save time, money, and headaches. It can also prevent rebrands, which can be expensive. Just like a bottle of champagne and tin of caviar. 

We’ll keep an eye out and provide any further updates.