IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Refusal to register 'KATIE’S KANDY KORNER' mark for chocolate candies affirmed, (Sep 3, 2026)

By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

In assessing the proposed mark KATIE’S KANDY KORNER with the two registered marks CANDY KORNER and CAROL’S CANDY CORNER, their highly similar appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression outweighed the weakness of the shared term CANDY CORNER.

The refusal of the application of a candy wholesaler to register the mark “KATIE’S KANDY KORNER” for its chocolate candy products was proper, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has determined in a nonprecedential order. The proposed and registered marks as a whole were likely to cause confusion in light of the identity of the goods, the same channels of trade, and same classes of customers. Thus, the refusal to register with respect to the application was affirmed (In re Leskro Inc., No. 98644460 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 1, 2026)).

Leskro Incorporated (“Applicant”), a New Jersey merchant wholesaler of food products, sought to register on the Principal Register the mark KATIE’S KANDY KORNER in standard character format for goods identified as “Candies; Candy; Chocolate; Chocolate bars; Hard candies; Mile chocolate; Snack cakes,” In International Class 30.

The examining attorney refused to register the proposed mark under Section 2(b) of the Trademark Act due to a likelihood of confusion with two registered marks owned by different entities. The first mark was the composite mark CANDY KORNER, for goods identified as “Candy” in International Class 30. The second mark was CAROL’S CANDY CORNER, in standard characters with “Candy” disclaimed, for goods identified as “Candy; Chocolate; Candies; Candy bars; Chocolate and chocolates; Chocolate bars; Chocolate bunnies; Chocolate truffles; Confectioneries, namely, snack foods, namely, chocolate; Confectionery, namely, candy and chocolate; Chocolate candies; Chocolates and chocolate based ready to eat candies and snacks; Filled chocolate; Fruit jelly candy; Gift baskets containing candy; Gummy candies; Hard candies; Mile chocolate; Rock candy,” in International Class 30. After the refusal was final, the Applicant appealed the refusal to register to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

Comparison of the goods. In light of the identity of the goods, channels of trade, and classes of customers, confusion was likely with the registered mark CAROL’S CANDY CORNER, the Board determined. Leskro’s application listed “Candies; Candy; Chocolate; Chocolate bars; Hard candies; Milk chocolate; Snack cakes.” However, all items except “snack cakes” were listed in Leskro’s registration. Since Leskro acknowledged that the goods were identical or legally identical, the similarity of the goods weighed in favor of concluding that confusion was likely. Furthermore, since the goods were identical, it was presumed that the goods travel in the same channels of trade to the same classes of purchasers.

Comparison of the marks. Assessing the two marks by their appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression, overall, the Applicant’s mark KATIE’S KANDY KORNER and the registered mark CAROL’S CANDY CORNER were highly similar. Both marks had three words, all three words were two syllables each, all began with a “k” or “hard c” sound, were identical in cadence in sound, were phonetically identical, and in the context of identical goods, meant the same thing – a corner stores where candy was sold. Leskro’s argument that the marks were not similar since it spelled “candy corner” with Ks and not Cs was rejected. The difference was de minimis and did not render the marks non-identical because consumers would plainly see KANDY KORNER and understand it as an intentional misspelling of CANDY CORNER, the Board noted.

Use of the marks on similar goods. The Applicant’s and registered marks when viewed in their entities were highly similar. Leskro’s contention that the shared term CANDY CORNER and its phonetic variants was a weak and diluted term for candy and evidence of third-party uses was probative that the term was fairly weak in the marketplace. However, Leskro’s argument that all marks containing CANDY CORNER must be registered since the USPTO allowed two marks with that wording to be registered was rejected. Leskro was not attempting to register CANDY CORNER by itself. The proposed mark was KATIE’S KANDY KORNER and the marks cited against it were more than just CANDY CORNER. Despite the weakness of the term CANDY CORNER, confusion was likely in the circumstances presented. Since the proposed registration was refused under Section 2(d) in view of the CAROL’S CANDY CORNER mark, there was no need to assess whether refusal was also appropriate in view of the CANDY KORNER mark, the Board concluded.

The Case is Serial No. 98644460.

Judge: Casagrande, T.

Attorneys: Gregory Kenyota (Bochner PLLC) for Leskro Inc. Jacquelyn Jones for the USPTO.

Companies: Leskro Inc.

Cases: Trademark USPTO