Likelihood of Confusion

Entrepreneurs and business owners often approach federal trademark registration with equal parts excitement and anxiety. You’ve chosen a name you like, you’ve started using it, and you’re ready to lock it in with a federal registration—only[...]

There is a current market trend for clothing trademarks to live in a gray zone between “design” and “brand.” That gray zone is where many business owners — especially restaurants, breweries, bars, entertainment companies, and beverage[...]

When a name or design (or name + design) conflict pops up in a trademark clearance search or an Office Action, many entrepreneurs reach for the same quick fix: adjust the font, add a swoosh, throw[...]

When the USPTO refuses an application under Section 2(d) for likelihood of confusion, applicants sometimes reach for a “crowded field” argument. The idea is straightforward: if many businesses already use similar words or roots for the[...]

Section 2(d) (Likelihood of Confusion) of the Lanham Act bars registration when an applied‑for trademark is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception as to the source or sponsorship of the goods or services. In other[...]

A familiar pair of parties—Sunkist Growers, Inc. and Intrastate Distributors, Inc. (IDI)—recently produced two opinions that every brand owner should understand. In September 2023, the TTAB dismissed Sunkist’s opposition to IDI’s KIST applications for soft drinks.[...]

At first glance, a business name like “Best Medical Certifications” might seem too descriptive to qualify as a federally registered trademark. And in many cases, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) would agree. But[...]

In July 2024, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) issued a precedential decision in In re Samsung Display Co., Ltd., affirming a Section 2(d) refusal to register the trademark UPC for various electronic display panels[...]

In trademark law, establishing a likelihood of confusion often hinges not only on the similarity of the trademarks themselves, but also on whether the goods or services they identify are sufficiently related. Section 1207.01(a) of the[...]

At the end of March 2025, a high-profile trademark dispute erupted in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, pitting famed surf and lifestyle brand Lost International, LLC ("Lost") against international music icon[...]