IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: ‘ZenCat’ for cat food likely to be confused with ZEN KITTY for cat litter, (Mar 23, 2026)

By Patricia K. Ruiz, J.D.

Affirming a refusal to register, the Board concluded that the similarity of the marks, overlap in goods, and similarity of trade channels collectively supported a likelihood of confusion finding.

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has affirmed an examining attorney’s partial refusal to register the composite mark “ZenCat,” for which an applicant sought to register for nutritional supplements for cats and cat food. The Board concluded that the applied-for mark is likely to be confused with the registered standard-character mark ZEN KITTY for cat litter (In re Watt, No. 98009242 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2026)).

Similarity of marks. The Board determined that the marks are similar in appearance, sound, connotation, and overall commercial impression. Both marks begin with the identical and dominant term “ZEN,” and both end with words—“CAT” and “KITTY”—that the record demonstrates are synonymous. The Board also found that the yin-yang cat design in the applicant’s composite mark, though visually notable, reinforces the cat-related nature of the goods and is therefore subordinate to the wording. Because ZEN KITTY is a standard-character mark capable of appearing in any stylization, the Board concluded that it could be displayed in a format visually similar to the applicant’s “ZenCat” lettering, increasing the similarity between the marks. The Board emphasized that consumers typically encounter trademarks at different times, not side-by-side, and thus are more likely to retain general impressions rather than precise distinctions.

Relatedness of goods. Turning to the relatedness of the goods, the Board credited extensive evidence submitted by the Examining Attorney showing that third-party brands commonly offer cat food, cat supplements, and cat litter under the same marks. This included third-party websites offering all three categories of goods under single-brand identifiers as well as multiple use-based registrations covering dietary supplements for pets, animal food products, and animal litter. The Board found that such evidence demonstrated that consumers are accustomed to encountering these types of goods together and perceiving them as originating from a single source. Because neither the application nor the cited registration contains restrictions on trade channels or purchasers, the Board presumed that the goods move through all normal channels, such as pet supply retailers, online sellers, and veterinary offices. As a result, the Board determined that the second and third DuPont factors strongly favored a likelihood of confusion.

Prior registration. The applicant asserted that her prior registration for a ZenCat mark—covering cat toys, veterinary services, and animal adoption services—should weigh against a finding of confusion under the thirteenth DuPont factor. She argued that the coexistence of her registration with the cited ZEN KITTY registration demonstrated that the USPTO previously viewed the marks as capable of coexisting. The Board rejected this argument, noting that the prior registration covered different goods and services from those in the present application, distinguishing the situation from In re Strategic Partners. The Board explained that the USPTO must evaluate each case on its own record and is not bound by earlier examination outcomes, even if similar or identical marks were previously allowed to register. The thirteenth factor therefore remained neutral.

Amended description. A separate refusal concerned the description of the applied-for mark, which originally referenced the term “SERIF,” the name of another party’s registered mark. The Examining Attorney argued that the description must use common, non-proprietary terminology. In response, the applicant proposed an amended description removing that reference and clarifying specific color features as well as the stylization of the “ZenCat” wording. The Board found the amended description acceptable and entered it into the record, rendering moot the refusal based on the mark description.

Likelihood of confusion. After weighing the probative DuPont factors, the Board concluded that the similarity of the marks, overlap in goods, and similarity of trade channels collectively supported a likelihood of confusion. No factor weighed against such a finding. Accordingly, the Board affirmed the Section 2(d) refusal for International Classes 5 and 31. The Board allowed the application to proceed to registration in Class 25 for graphic t-shirts with the amended mark description.

The Case is No. 98009242.

Judge: Cohen, W.

Attorneys: Phoenix Niesley-Lindgren Watt, pro se. Javier Jaramillo for the USPTO.

Cases: Trademark USPTO