IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Refusal to register YOGUT mark for yogurt snacks affirmed, (Jan 26, 2026)

By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

Comparing the Applicant’s mark YOGUT to the cited registered mark YOURGUT in terms of appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression, consumers would likely read the proposed mark as a misspelled version of “your gut."

The refusal of the application of a food and beverage company to register the mark YOGUT for its yogurt-based snacks was so similar to the registered mark YOURGUT for yogurt as to likely cause consumer confusion was proper, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has determined in a nonprecedential order. The respective marks created similar commercial impressions, had identical suggestive meanings, and were similar in visual appearance and sound. Thus, the refusal to register with respect to the application was affirmed (In re Mira International Foods, Inc., No. 98465558 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2026)).

Mira International Foods, Inc. (“Applicant”), a retail grocery business located in New Jersey that specializes in food and beverage products, sought to register on the Principal Register the mark YOGUT, in standard character format, for goods identified as “freeze-dried yogurt-based” snacks in International Class 29. The examining attorney refused to register the proposed mark under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act on the ground of likelihood of confusion, citing the standard character mark YOURGUT, registered on the Principal Register for “yogurt” in International Class 29. After the refusal was final, the Applicant appealed the refusal to register to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

Likelihood of confusion. Overall, the Applicant’s mark YOGUT and the Registrant’s mark YOURGUT created very similar commercial impressions because they had identical suggestive meanings and connotations and were similar in visual appearance and sound. This factor favored a conclusion that confusion was likely, the Board determined. The Applicant’s mark is freeze-dried yogurt-based snacks and the registered mark YOURGUT is for yogurt. Comparing the marks in their entireties as to “appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression,” the marks, while not identical in appearance or sound, were similar sounding and similar looking. Both marks would likely be seen by consumers as intentional misspellings of yogurt and that, by omitting the letter “r,” point to the digestive benefits of yogurt. The Applicant admitted as such by noting “eating yogurt on a regular basis is good for gut health” and according to that statement the term “gut” in the marks is arguably suggestive of the goods described in the respective application and registration.

The Applicant’s argument that the “YO” portion of its mark would be seen as the Spanish word for “I” or “me” and consumers would read the mark as “I am stomach” was rejected. The examining attorney presented English dictionary evidence that consumers would more naturally read “YO” as a colloquial English abbreviation for “your” and see YOGUT as a misspelled version of “your gut.” Nothing in the record or anything about the Applicant’s identified goods would prompt consumers to read the first portion of the Applicant’s single term mark as a Spanish word and the second portion as an English word, the Board explained.

When considering the similarity or dissimilarity and nature of the goods described in the respective application and registration, the good recited in the cited registration was yogurt and the Applicant’s goods were “yogurt-based” and there was an intrinsic relationship between those two goods. The examining attorney presented evidence that “the more consumers see companies selling certain non-identical goods under one mark, the more they tend to see those goods as related in the sense that matters for potential source confusion.” The Applicant conceded that there was some relationship between the goods but offered no rebuttal to the evidence of relatedness. Based on the descriptions of the goods in the respective application and registration and evidence of the third parties selling both types of goods under one brand, the goods were related, the Board noted.

Regarding a comparison of the channels of trade, the examining attorney presented evidence that the goods were likely to travel in the same trade channels. Although the Applicant did not address this factor, there was evidence of some overlap in the trade channels used for these types of goods and this provided some support for the conclusion that confusion was likely, the Board concluded.

The Case is Serial No. 98465558.

Judge: Casagrande, T.

Attorneys: Daniel S. Kirshner for Mira International Foods, Inc. Amanda Miller for the USPTO.

Companies: Mira International Foods, Inc.

Cases: Trademark USPTO