TTABlog Test: Is KARDASHIAN-JENNER for Online News Services Confusable with KARDASHIAN JENNER PRODUCTIONS for Entertainment Services?

The USPTO refused to register the mark KARDASHIAN-JENNER for "Providing information, news, and commentary in the field of current events via the Internet; Providing current event news via a global computer network," concluding that confusion is likely with the registered mark KARDASHIAN JENNER PRODUCTIONS for "Entertainment services, namely, multimedia production services; production of audio and video recordings; creation, development and production of entertainment and pop culture content" [PRODUCTIONS disclaimed]. The marks are "very similar,' but Applicant Brenda Core contended that her services are "specific and limited," "distinctive from those of the cited registration," and "cannot be mistaken with providing current event news information and content." How do you think this came out? In re Brenda Core, Serial No. 97608134 (September 8, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cheryl S. Goodman).

Examining Attorney Robert Clark relied on use-based third-party registrations to show the relatedness of the involved services. He also provided internet evidence from Buzzfeed and Vice Media, which offer both information on current events and information relating to culture. Consequently, the Board found the services to be related under the second DuPont factor.

Since there were no limitations in the application and cited registration as to channels of trade, the Board presumed that the respective services travel in the normal trade channels for those services, to the all the usual prospective consumers. "The consumer[s] of Applicant’s and Registrant’s services are those consumers who consume news and pop culture information and media and are interested in news and entertainment." [Is the Board saying that the consumers overlap? -ed.] The Board noted that, because the services are not legally identical, "there is no presumption of trade channel overlap." Due to lack of evidence as to channels of trade, the Board found the second DuPont factor to be neutral. [If the USPTO fails to prove that the services travel in the same channels, should that be dispositive in favor of applicant? -ed.].

Considering the marks in their entireties, the Board found applicant’s mark to be "very similar" to registrant’s mark in sound, appearance and meaning. Moreover, "[b]ecause of these similarities, Applicant’s and Registrant’s marks engender similar overall commercial impressions."

And so, the Board affirmed the refusal.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: What do you think? The USPTO also refused registration under the false suggestion of a connection portion of Section 2(a), but the Board declined to reach that issue. In light of the channels of trade issue, maybe the Board should have affirmed the 2(a) refusal and skipped the 2(d) refusal.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.