IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: ‘WORLDLE’ likely to cause confusion with ‘WORDLE’ mark for games, (Nov 6, 2026)

By Brian Craig, J.D.

The relevant factors overwhelmingly show that the WORLDLE mark for geography games is likely to cause confusion with the popular WORDLE mark for word games.

Concluding that the WORLDLE mark for geography games is likely to cause confusion with the WORDLE owned The New York Times Company for word puzzle games, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has denied the application to register the proposed WORLDLE mark and sustained the objection from the newspaper publisher. The Board concluded that the relevant likelihood of confusion factors overwhelmingly show that the WORLDLE mark is likely to cause confusion with WORDLE for games. The Board found the marks are similar and that the applicant’s non-downloadable game software is closely related to the WORDLE mark with downloadable software for playing word puzzle games (The New York Times Co. v. Worldle LLC, No. 91291631 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 4, 2026)).

A software company, Worldle LLC, applied to register the word mark WORLDLE on the Principal Register for providing online non-downloadable game software in International Class 42.2, and specifically used with geography games. The New York Times Company, which owns the registered trademark for WORDLE used in connection with the popular word puzzle games, filed an opposition arguing that the applied-for WORLDLE mark is likely to cause confusion under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d). The Board evaluated the relevant likelihood of confusion factors.

Similarity of marks. While the WORLDLE and WORDLE marks are not identical, the Board concluded that overall, the marks, viewed in their entireties, are quite similar. The marks look very similar, with inclusion of the letter “L” in WORLDLE the only difference. Many consumers will pronounce the marks similarly. To the extent that some consumers derive any meaning from them, as opposed to viewing them as made-up words, both marks are suggestive of puzzle games, one involving words, and the other involving geography. Therefore, the similarity of the marks factor supports a likelihood of confusion.

Goods and services. In comparing the similarity of the goods and services, the Board concluded that the applicant’s non-downloadable game software for WORLDLE is very closely related to the WORDLE mark associated with downloadable software for playing word puzzle games. The New York Times submitted evidence that four other companies own active registrations that that identify both downloadable game software and the service of offering non-downloadable game software, as in the application. This constitutes additional evidence that consumers view the respective software products and services to be related. Thus, the factor as to the similarities between the goods and services also weighs in favor of The New York Times.

Trade channels and customers. Next, the Board concluded that the classes-of-customers factor supports the opposition, but the trade channels factor supports the applicant. The general public includes a substantial proportion of unsophisticated consumers. And because the game software is free and therefore subject to impulse downloading, the degree of care in choosing game software is likely to be low. Together, the circumstances reflected by the record here indicate, that this factor favors a conclusion that confusion is likely.

Strength. The Board also concluded that the WORDLE mark is strong, which supports a likelihood of confusion. The New York Times has successfully monetized WORDLE, enjoying advertising revenue in the tens of millions of dollars between Sept. 2022 and June 2025. While the WORDLE mark is strong in the marketplace, the mark is of average conceptual strength.

Weighing factors. On balance, the Board found the relevant factors overwhelmingly weigh in favor of a conclusion that the applicant’s WORLDLE mark is likely to cause confusion with the WORDLE registered mark. The Board found that several factors are neutral, including evidence of actual confusion. The two key considerations in the analysis are the similarities between the marks and the similarities between the goods and services. In this case, both the factors related to the similarities of the marks and between the goods and services support a likelihood of confusion. Therefore, the Board sustained the objection filed by The New York Times and refused registration of the WORLDLE mark.

The Case is No. 91291631.

Judge: Casagrande, T.

Attorneys: Jordan Lavine (Greenberg P.C.) for The New York Times Co.

Companies: The New York Times Co.; Worldle LLC

MainStory: TopStory Trademark GCNNews USPTO