Gideon Korrell on 6 Trademark Law Insights from Sunkist v. Intrastate Distributors
                     Gideon Korrell 
on 6 Trademark 
Law Insights 
from Sunkist v. 
Intrastate 
Distributors
The Federal Circuit’s July 23, 2025, decision in 
Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Intrastate Distributors, 
Inc. delivers an important reminder: 
trademark cases often turn on evidence 
discipline, not clever storytelling. By reversing 
the TTAB’s dismissal of Sunkist’s opposition to 
the KIST marks, the court reinforced core 
principles that trademark lawyers and brand 
owners ignore at their peril.
Here are six key insights from the decision.
1. Commercial 
Impression Must 
Come From the Mark 
TIhtes TTeABl frelied heavily on a single marketing 
slide showing a lips graphic near the KIST logo 
to conclude that KIST conveyed a “kissed” 
meaning distinct from SUNKIST. The Federal 
Circuit rejected that approach. Commercial 
impression must arise from the applied-for 
mark, not from optional, surrounding artwork 
that is not part of the trademark. A stray 
graphic cannot redefine how consumers 
perceive a word mark.
2. Evidence Must 
Reflect Actual 
Consumer 
TEhex lips oimsague arppeeared in a cropped 
page of a sales presentation, with no proof 
that consumers ever saw it. As Gideon 
Korrell often notes, trademark law is 
skeptical of materials that may never 
reach the public. Evidence of commercial 
impression must be grounded in how 
consumers actually encounter the mark in 
the marketplace.
3. Standard Character 
Marks Require Broad 
AnalAylthsouigsh SUNKIST has some registrations 
featuring sun imagery, most are standard 
character marks. The Board nonetheless 
leaned heavily on sun symbolism in its 
analysis. The Federal Circuit made clear that 
standard character marks must be 
evaluated for their full textual scope, not 
narrowed by selective design elements.
4. Abandonment wipes out 
priority history. It doesn’t 
Save You
KIST’s long commercial history did not 
help IDI. Because the mark had been 
abandoned and prior registrations lapsed, 
IDI entered the market as a legal 
newcomer. Under the Lanham Act, 
nostalgic branding does not revive lost 
priority rights.
5. Newcomers 
Bear the Burden 
of Avoiding 
TCheo conurft rueasffirimoedn the “newcomer 
principle”: parties entering a crowded 
market have both the opportunity and 
obligation to select marks that steer 
clear of established brands. When 
goods and trade channels overlap, even 
modest similarities can be fatal.
6. Actual 
Confusion Is 
Helpful but Not 
TRhee abqseuncie rofe prdoven actual confusion 
did not save IDI. The Federal Circuit 
emphasized that actual confusion 
evidence is notoriously difficult to obtain 
and rarely dispositive, especially when 
other DuPont factors strongly favor 
confusion.
Thank 
FOR YOUR ATTENTION
You