IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: KARMA KRACKERS likely to be confused with KARMA mark for nut products, (Oct 6, 2025)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

The mark KARMA KRACKERS was likely to be confused with the registered mark KARMA because the goods were related and the marks very similar.

A seller of nut butters and other snack foods under the registered mark KARMA showed that the proposed mark KARMA KRACKERS for crackers was likely to cause confusion, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) has held. The goods were related and the marks highly similar (Karma Nuts, Inc. v. Karma Crackers, No. 91281846 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 3, 2025)).

Karma Crackers (Crackers) sought registration on the Principal Register of the standard character mark KARMA KRACKERS for “seasoned soda crackers” in International Class 30, as well as an associated composite mark for “soda crackers with seasoning” in the same class. Karma Nuts, Inc. (Nuts) opposed the application on the grounds of lack of bona fide use in commerce and likelihood of confusion with its registered mark standard character mark KARMA and associated composite mark for “Nut butters; Nut-based milk; Nut-based snack foods; Prepared nuts; Roasted nuts; Shelled nuts.” Nuts also claimed common law rights.

After briefly noting that Nuts’ priority was not in dispute and that Nuts had shown its entitlement to a statutory cause of action from its pleaded registrations, the Board considered the DuPont factors for which there was evidence of record.

Similarity of goods, channels of trade, and consumers. The Board found that several third-party registrations—showing nuts and crackers sold under the same mark, as well as together in gift boxes—showed that the goods were of a sort which could emanate from the same source to the same consumers through the same channels of trade. These factors weighed in favor of a likelihood of confusion.

Strength of the opposer’s mark. Neither party provided sufficient evidence for the Board to find that the KARMA mark was either entitled to an expanded scope of protection or was particularly weak either conceptually or commercially, so these factors were neutral.

Similarity of the marks. The Board noted that both marks shared the dominant element KARMA, which was the entirety of Nuts’ mark. This weighed in favor of a likelihood of confusion.

Conditions of purchase. The products were small snack items which would be expected to be purchased on impulse, so this factor weighed somewhat in favor of confusion.

Concurrent use and actual confusion. It was not shown that the goods existed in the marketplace with a meaningful opportunity for actual confusion to have occurred, so these factors were neutral.

Balancing the factors, the Board found there was a likelihood of confusion and sustained the opposition. The board did not reach the bona fide use in commerce issue because it sustained on the likelihood of confusion.

The Case is Opposition No. 91281846.

Judge: Myles, M.

Attorneys: Paul W. Reidl (Dickenson, Peatman & Fogarty PC) for Karma Nuts, Inc. Rexford Brabson (T-Rex Law, PC) for Karma Crackers.

Companies: Karma Nuts, Inc.; Karma Crackers

Cases: Trademark USPTO