Are These Two Logo Marks Confusable for Candy?

Candy Dynamics, Inc. opposed an application to register the mark below left, for candy, claiming likely confusion with its registered mark shown below right, also for candy. The Board found the first DuPont factor, the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks, to be dispositive. How do you think this came out? Candy Dynamics, Inc. v. Aurox Distributors LLC, Opposition No. 91292159 (May 7, 2027) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Marth B. Allard).

The Board acknowledged that Applicant’s mark includes a large design element, but it found the literal element SOUR CITY to be its dominant element. "Moreover, the exaggerated expression on the character’s face, i.e., its wide-eyes and outstretched tongue, suggests it has just eaten something extremely sour. Thus, the image reinforces the literal elements of the mark and, for that reason, further supports our finding that the literal elements SOUR CITY are the dominant portion of Applicant’s mark. This is so, despite the fact that, as Opposer argues, the image is larger in size compared to the size of the literal elements."

Comparing the marks for similarity in sight and sound, the Board found that "the marks share no common literal elements and are dissimilar in sight and sound."

As to connotation and commercial impression, "nothing in Applicant’s mark suggests that the character has tasted something toxic; rather, the literal elements SOUR CITY suggest the character has eaten something sour." This is in contrast to Opposer’s mark, in which "the mushroom cloud image and the resulting toxic connotation is completely missing from Applicant’s mark. As a result, the marks when considered in their entireties are different in connotation and commercial impression."

When comparing the parties’ marks in their entireties, we agree with Opposer that the parties’ design portions share some general, thematic similarities, i.e., each character has (i) a sort of rounded head; (ii) bloodshot eyes, with the right eye slightly larger than the left; and (iii) a fully extended tongue extending from the left-center of their mouth. However, the record shows that the shared elements of a character with a rounded head, wide-eyes and outstretched tongue are relatively weak, and not “unique” as Opposer argues. Moreover, the presence of the wording SOUR CITY in the Applicant’s mark suffices to distinguish the marks aurally and further distinguishes them visually.

And so, the Board dismissed the opposition.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: WYHO?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.