TTABlog Test: Is KARMA KRACKERS for Crackers Confusable with KARMA for Nuts?

Karma Nuts opposed applications to register the mark KARMA KRACKERS and the logo mark shown below left, for seasoned soda crackers, alleging a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark KARMA, in standard character and logo form (below right), for "Nut butters; Nut-based milk; Nut-based snack foods; Prepared nuts; Roasted nuts; Shelled nuts." Are the goods related? Are the marks confusingly similar? What do you think? Karma Nuts, Inc. v. Karma Crackers, Opposition No. 91281846 (October 3, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Mary Beth Myles).

The Goods: Opposer Karma Nuts made of record eight examples of third-party registrations with the same owner for both nuts and crackers, or for boxes or gift baskets containing both crackers and nuts. In addition, it submitted eleven examples of third-party use of the same mark for both crackers and nuts. 

Applicant Crackers pointed to seventeen pairs of third-party registrations for the same or similar marks for nuts and crackers, registered to different owners. The Board was unimpressed.

We have no contextual information on the market interface between these pairs of third-party marks—i.e., whether they are registered or in use under consent agreements, or whether they have been subject to any litigation or Board proceedings. Nor do we know whether the marks have actually coexisted in the marketplace without confusion and whether the marks coexist in a crowded field such that consumers have been conditioned to distinguish among the specific marks based on minute differences.

Crackers contended that “[w]here the relatedness of goods is not obvious or generally recognized, ‘something more’ than the mere potential complementary use is required to establish a likelihood of confusion.” Wrong. The Board observed that the "[t]he limited 'something more' principle discussed in the cases cited by Applicant does not apply to circumstances involving a comparison of goods."

And so, the second and third DuPont factors weighed in favor of likelihood of confusion.

The Marks: The Board focused on the registered word mark KARMA: "[If] we find no likelihood of confusion based on Opposer’s KARMA mark, we would not find confusion likely based on Opposer’s pleaded composite mark."

The Board noted that consumers are more likely to focus on and remember the "highly distinctive" first word KARMA in applicant's word mark. "The word 'KRACKERS' is not sufficiently distinctive to create a different commercial impression for the mark as a whole, or to distinguish Applicant’s marks from Opposer’s mark." "Rather, because Applicant’s marks incorporate the entirety of Opposer’s mark plus the misspelled generic or descriptive word KRACKERS, consumers may view the mark as part of a line extension of Opposer’s goods."

With respect to its logo mark, Crackers argued that the addition of “K K” and the design element “highlights the unitary nature of the mark, rendering ‘karma’ not dominant and emphasizing the second word ‘Krackers’ in such a way that consumers’ minds will be impressed with the mark as a whole." The Board disagreed: "Although we consider the design element in making our determination, where a mark contains both words and a design, the word portion is generally accorded greater weight because the words are used to call for the goods."

Crackers maintained that because both parties’ goods "contain common allergens, their consumers are likely to exercise a certain degree of consideration." The Board pointed out that its decision must based on the least sophisticated potential purchasers." Stone Lion, 746 F.3d at 1325. However, it found that the fourth DuPont factor weighed "somewhat" in favor of a finding of likelihood of confusion. But, "even assuming that some consumers would exercise a higher degree of care when purchasing such goods, it would not change the analysis."

Conclusion: "On balance, we find that confusion is likely."

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: Reminds me of the AUSTINUTS case from 2009 [TTABlogged here].

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.