Peju Province Winery L.P. v. Cesari S.R.L.

── Peju Province Winery L.P. v. Cesari S.R.L. ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: June 08, 2026 Category: General 24-1903(L) Peju Province Winery L.P. v. Cesari S.R.L. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 8th day of June, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY, RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ PEJU PROVINCE WINERY L.P., a California Limited Partnership, PEJU FAMILY OPERATING PARTNERSHIP L.P., a California Limited Partnership, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, PEJU PROVINCE CORPORATION, a California Corporation, Defendant, Nos. 24-1903 (Lead) 24-2014 (XAP)  v. CESARI S.R.L., an Italian Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant. _____________________________________ For Defendants-Appellants- Cross-Appellees: JOEL G. MACMULL (Brian M. Block, Mandelbaum Barrett PC, New York, NY; Martin B. Schwimmer, Stobbs, Charlotte, NC, on the brief), Mandelbaum Barrett PC, New York, NY. For Plaintiff-Appellee- Cross-Appellant: VALERIA CALAFIORE HEALY, Healy LLC, New York, NY. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Naomi Reice Buchwald, Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the July 12, 2024 judgment of the district court is VACATED and the case is REMANDED. Peju Province Winery L.P. and Peju Family Operating Partnership L.P. (together, “Peju”) appeal from a judgment following a bench trial on trademark- infringement claims brought by Cesari S.R.L. (“Cesari”), an Italian winemaker. In essence, Peju contends that the district court erred in giving preclusive effect to 2 a decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) that denied Peju’s trademark registration application on the ground that it was likely to be confused with Cesari’s previously registered trademark. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision. I. Background and Procedural History In January 2003, the USPTO granted Cesari’s trademark registration application for the use of the mark “LIANO” in connection with wines. One month later, Peju, a California winemaker, sought to register the trademark “LIANA” with the USPTO for use in connection with the sale of wines. Cesari filed an opposition to Peju’s registration application with the USPTO, which initiated a proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”), the USPTO’s internal adjudicatory body. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1063, 1067. In its opposition,