Attorney advertising. This article is general information, not legal advice.

Many businesses with a similar name get misdirected emails and phone calls. It’s tempting to treat that stack of wrong-number messages as proof of trademark confusion. A recent Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decision shows why that evidence often carries less weight than owners expect.

On October 8, 2026, in Agricultural Utilization Research Institute v. Ejec Ventures, LLC, Opposition No. 91292154, the Board dismissed an opposition to registration of AURI for “nutritional supplements in the form of gummies.” The opposer, a Minnesota agricultural research organization, owns registrations for AURI-formative marks covering research, consulting, education, and related services in agriculture. The Board found the marks similar but held that confusion was unlikely. Judge Christopher C. Larkin wrote the opinion.

The decision is not precedential, so it doesn’t bind future panels. But it walks through the likelihood-of-confusion factors in useful detail.

Similar marks weren’t enough

The Board found that “auri,” displayed in large, bold type and placed first, dominated the opposer’s composite marks. The applicant’s mark consisted of that word alone, so the marks looked, sounded, and felt similar. That factor favored the opposer.

The case turned on the goods and services. The opposer offered only one third-party registration covering both supplements and scientific research, which the Board gave limited weight. Testimony that the opposer had served clients “in the mushroom area” was vague and unsupported. The Board found the services and gummies unrelated. It also found no overlap in trade channels or customers: gummies are sold to individual consumers, while the opposer’s services go to agricultural institutions, processors, farmers, and entrepreneurs.

Why 102 misdirected contacts got little weight

The opposer pointed to 102 emails and calls that were plainly meant for the applicant. The Board took that evidence seriously but found it of limited probative value, for three reasons:

• Most were form solicitations. Many came from resellers and would-be business partners offering services. They were generic emails that could have been sent to any company, and none mentioned the applicant’s gummies.
• Carelessness explained them at least as well as confusion. The Board found it more likely than not that senders searched the internet for “Auri” and landed on the opposer’s auri.org site rather than the applicant’s less intuitive tryauri.com.
• No one asked the senders why. The opposer didn’t contact the consumers or callers to learn what they were thinking. Without that testimony, the Board couldn’t infer that anyone believed the opposer was the source of the gummies.

In the Board’s words, the number of misdirected contacts was substantial, “but in this context quantity does not have a quality all its own.” Persuasive actual-confusion evidence has to show confusion about who makes or sponsors the product, not just mistakes in finding the right inbox. The actual-confusion factor ended up neutral, and the opposition was dismissed.

What evidence actually helps

If you think another business’s name is confusing your customers, consider building a record that can hold up:

• Log each incident when it happens. Keep the message, the date, how the person found you, and what product or service they were asking about.
• Ask follow-up questions. A short, non-leading question, such as how the person found you or which company they thought they were contacting, can turn an ambiguous email into real evidence. Testimony from the people involved carries much more weight than a pile of forwards.
• Separate customers from vendors. Sales pitches and resale offers show that someone wanted to reach a business, not that a buyer was confused about the source.
• Prove relatedness directly. Show that the same companies offer both kinds of goods or services under one brand, and that they’re sold in the same places to the same buyers. One registration rarely does it.
• Clear your own name with the internet in mind. A domain and brand that are easy to find reduce misdirected contacts in the first place.

For a contrasting case where weak evidence hurt the applicant, see our post on ZEN WAFFLES and ZEN BAKERY. Our trademarks overview and federal vs. Iowa filing resource cover clearance and registration basics.

Sources: the TTABVUE opposition docket, which lists the October 8, 2026 final decision dismissing the opposition, and commentary on the TTABlog.

Talk with Iowa trademark counsel

Jason Sytsma helps Iowa food, farm, and consumer brands clear, register, and enforce their names. Learn more on the About Jason page and the firm bio.

Contact the office to request a consultation. Any engagement is subject to conflicts review, an engagement agreement, and applicable professional-responsibility rules. This article is attorney advertising and is intended for general educational purposes only; it is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Results vary, and past experience does not guarantee a particular outcome.