IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Confusion unlikely between DUNDER MIFFLIN for paper and MIFFLIN for related goods, (Mar 27, 2026)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

NBCUniversal’s mark—derived from the sitcom “The Office”—created different commercial impressions from the existing mark, registered for luggage tags, gift bows, and other goods.

An examining attorney’s refusal of NBCUniversal’s application to register the mark DUNDER MIFFLIN has been reversed by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which concluded that confusion was not likely between the applied-for mark and the existing registered mark MIFFLIN. The TTAB found that that similarity and nature of the goods weighed in favor of a finding of likelihood of confusion but the applicant’s mark and the registered mark created different commercial impressions. Balancing the factors, the TTAB concluded that the lack of similarity between the marks outweighed the similar goods (In re NBCUniversal Media, LLC, No. 97831933 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2026)).

Background. NBCUniversal Media, LLC (applicant) sought to register on the Principal Register the mark DUNDER MIFFLIN (in standard characters) for paper party decorations, paper party supplies, wire-bound notebooks, paper note pads, writing pads, blank journals for writing, printed diaries, printed daily planners, printed calendars, photograph albums, pencils, pens, pencil erasers, decorative pencil-top ornaments, printed posters, printed postcards, printed greeting cards, and stationery packs in International Class 16. The examining attorney refused to register the proposed mark under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act on the ground that the applicant’s mark resembled the registered mark MIFFLIN for paper labels and tags, in International Class 16; luggage tags, in International Class 18; replacement plastic sheets specially adapted for picture frames, in International Class 20; and plastic ornamental bows for decoration and gift wrapping, in International Class 26; and likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive. When the refusal was made final, the applicant appealed and requested reconsideration. After the examining attorney denied the request for reconsideration, the appeal resumed.

Likelihood of confusion. The TTAB, upon considering the DuPont factors for evaluating a likelihood of confusion, found that confusion was unlikely. The two dominant factors in the likelihood of confusion analysis are similarity of the marks and similarity of the goods.

Similarity of goods. The TTAB found that the applicant’s and the registrant’s goods are related. The goods identified in the cited registration include paper labels and tags, and plastic ornamental bows for decoration and gift wrapping. The TTAB found a close inherent relationship between the applicant’s “paper gift wrap bows” and the registered “plastic ornamental bows for decoration and gift wrapping.” That is, the goods are the same item (bows) used for the same purpose (gift wrap), and only differ in their material composition (paper v. plastic). In addition, the TTAB found a relationship based on the complementary uses of the registered goods “plastic ornamental bows for decoration and gift wrapping” and the applicant’s goods “gift wrapping paper and paper gift wrapping ribbons.”

The TTAB noted that the bows, ribbons and paper are all used to wrap gifts, and so the goods are not just complementary, but intrinsically related. Additionally, the record included webpage excerpts demonstrating that the “paper labels and tags” and “plastic ornamental bows for decoration and gift wrapping” listed in the cited registration, and the gift wrapping paper, paper gift wrapping ribbons, printed greeting cards, paper party supplies, listed in the application are available under the same mark from the same specialty online retail sources. Therefore, the evidence showed that the applicant’s goods are related to the registrant’s goods because consumers may encounter the same entity offering both under the same mark. Accordingly, the second DuPont factor weighed in favor of a finding of likelihood of confusion.

Similarity of marks. The TTAB noted that the record indicated that the term MIFFLIN is a surname, a Pennsylvania county named for Pennsylvania’s first governor, a township in Ohio, and a street in Madison, Wisconsin. Further, there was no assertion or evidence that the term has any descriptive significance as applied to the registered goods or the applicant’s goods. Additionally, there was no assertion or evidence that the term DUNDER is a dictionary term, or has any descriptive significance as applied to the registered goods or the applicant’s goods.

The TTAB found that despite the similarities in appearance and sound based on the common term MIFFLIN, the connotation and commercial impression of the marks MIFFLIN and DUNDER MIFFLIN are not similar. There was no record support for finding that MIFFLIN is an abbreviated form of DUNDER MIFFLIN or that DUNDER MIFFLIN is a humorous reference to MIFFLIN.

In addition, the TTAB disagreed with the examining attorney’s argument that the applicant had not established the relevant consumer of the applied-for goods would readily recognize the reference of DUNDER MIFFLIN to a fictional paper company associated with “The Office.” The paper labels and tags and paper gift wrap involved here are paper products available to the general consumer. The Office was a television show about a paper company, and originally available to the general consumer on a television network, and, as demonstrated by the article in Variety, subsequently viewed by many more consumers via streaming services. The TTAB found that the fanciful prefatory term DUNDER alters the overall commercial impression created by the term MIFFLIN alone. Additionally, there was significant evidence that the connotation of the term DUNDER MIFFLIN to the general consumer of the applicant’s goods is a reference to the setting for the television show.

Therefore, the TTAB concluded that as applicant’s mark DUNDER MIFFLIN and the registered mark MIFFLIN created different commercial impressions, and the first DuPont factor weighed against finding a likelihood of confusion.

Balancing the factors, the TTAB determined that the lack of similarity between the marks outweighed the similar goods. Accordingly, there was no likelihood of confusion between the applicant’s mark and the registered mark for their respective identified services, and the Section 2(d) refusal to register was reversed.

The Case is Serial No. 97831933.

Judge: Dunn, E.

Attorneys: Timothy D. Hance (NBCuniversal Media, LLC) for NBCUniversal Media, LLC. Elaine Xu for the USPTO.

Companies: NBCUniversal Media, LLC

Cases: Trademark USPTO