The Duck Commander wine lawsuit was a 2013 trademark case in which Duckhorn Wine Company sued the Robertson family’s Duck Commander brand, its producer Trinchero Family Estates, and Walmart, arguing that Duck Commander’s use of the word “Duck” and duck imagery on wine labels infringed Duckhorn’s long-established marks. It settled confidentially in August 2014, with Duck Commander permitted to sell through the inventory it had already produced.1North Bay Business Journal. A Defensible Trademark Isn’t as Simple as Putting Your Name on It
Who Sued Whom, and Why
Duckhorn Vineyards has built its brand around waterfowl since 1976, with a portfolio that includes Duckhorn Vineyards, Decoy, Paraduxx, Migration, Goldeneye, and Canvasback.2Duckhorn. Dan and Margaret Duckhorn3Bar and Restaurant. Trinchero Family Estates Collaborates With Robertson Family to Launch Duck Commander’s Wines4People. Duck Dynasty Commander Wines
Three weeks later, on November 27, 2013, Duckhorn filed a trademark infringement and dilution complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The named defendants were Duck Commander, Inc.; Sutter Home Winery, Inc. (doing business as Trinchero Family Estates); and Walmart Stores, Inc.5Christian Post. Duck Commander Accused of Trademark Infringement Over Wine Brand
What Duckhorn Claimed
Duckhorn argued it owned a “family of duck related marks and labels” developed over more than three decades, and that Duck Commander’s combination of the word “Duck” with duck imagery on a wine label created a likelihood of consumer confusion.6Press Democrat. Duckhorn Files Lawsuit Over Duck Dynasty Wines The complaint leaned on a practical retail point: because many stores shelve wines alphabetically, Duckhorn’s “Decoy by Duckhorn” and “Duckhorn Vineyards” bottles could end up sitting right next to Duck Commander’s. Duckhorn also noted that both lines were produced in St. Helena, California.5Christian Post. Duck Commander Accused of Trademark Infringement Over Wine Brand
Duckhorn’s attorney, Henry Bunsow of Bunsow De Mory, warned in the filing that “Trinchero has the capability to flood the domestic market with wine bearing the infringing Duck Commander name and duck label motif particularly through the massive distribution channel of Wal-Mart stores.”1North Bay Business Journal. A Defensible Trademark Isn’t as Simple as Putting Your Name on It
The filing followed a failed round of pre-suit negotiations earlier in November 2013 and a cease-and-desist letter that attorneys for Trinchero and Duck Commander had called “overreaching and unsupported.”7The Drinks Business. Duckhorn Sues Over Duck Commander Range5Christian Post. Duck Commander Accused of Trademark Infringement Over Wine Brand
How Duck Commander Responded
Trinchero’s lawyers argued the two brands sold to entirely different customers. Duck Commander bottles moved at $9.99 in Walmart aisles; Duckhorn’s ran $25 to $95 in 2013.8Wine and Spirits. Duck Dynasty Flap Over Wine7The Drinks Business. Duckhorn Sues Over Duck Commander Range Duck Commander’s attorney, Scott Gerien, later said the brand was already well known as a distinct entity before it ever moved into wine, which he argued undercut any confusion claim.1North Bay Business Journal. A Defensible Trademark Isn’t as Simple as Putting Your Name on It
On the same day Duckhorn filed its complaint, Duck Commander’s lawyers filed a separate declaratory judgment action in the same court — Duck Commander Inc. v. Duckhorn Wine Company, Case No. 3:13-cv-05526-MEJ. That action asked the court to declare that the word “Duck” and the image of a duck were generic in the wine context and that Duckhorn had no monopoly over them.9Tucker & Up. Duck Commander v. Duckhorn
How It Ended
The case settled in August 2014, roughly nine months after it was filed. Most of the terms are confidential. The one publicly known condition is that Duck Commander was allowed to keep selling wine already produced under that label at the time of the agreement.1North Bay Business Journal. A Defensible Trademark Isn’t as Simple as Putting Your Name on It
The two sides described the outcome differently. Duckhorn’s firm called it a “confidential settlement protecting Duckhorn’s trademarks, reputation, and branding.”10Bunsow De Mory. Henry Bunsow Gerien said his clients “found it easy to settle” and “didn’t feel like we gave up a whole lot.”1North Bay Business Journal. A Defensible Trademark Isn’t as Simple as Putting Your Name on It Duck Commander wines do not appear to have continued in production beyond whatever inventory the settlement covered.
Duckhorn’s Pattern of Enforcing “Duck” Marks
The Duck Commander suit was one of several Duckhorn has brought against wineries using duck-themed branding.
- Duck Pond Cellars, in the mid-1990s, settled on undisclosed terms.6Press Democrat. Duckhorn Files Lawsuit Over Duck Dynasty Wines
- Cecchetti Sebastiani Cellar, in 1999, agreed to rename its “Smoking Duck” brand to “Smoking Loon.”6Press Democrat. Duckhorn Files Lawsuit Over Duck Dynasty Wines
- Duck Walk Vineyards settled with Duckhorn in 2003 on terms that let it keep its name but required clear labeling of the wine’s place of origin and restricted its use of duck imagery. Duckhorn later sued again in the Eastern District of New York in 2013, alleging breach, and obtained a settlement and entry of judgment imposing geographic sales limits.6Press Democrat. Duckhorn Files Lawsuit Over Duck Dynasty Wines10Bunsow De Mory. Henry Bunsow
- Stone Wolf Vineyards was sued in 2024 (Case No. 3:24-cv-08652, Northern District of California) over alleged violations of prior settlement agreements involving the “Duck Pond” mark.11Bloomberg Law. Duckhorn Sues Rival Over Duck Pond Wine Trademark, Trade Dress
Read against that history, the Duck Commander case fits a consistent pattern: Duckhorn treats the combination of “Duck” wording and duck imagery on a wine label as its territory, and it has repeatedly used litigation to police the line.