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

Many AI startups describe their product narrowly: a chatbot for education, a companion app, a writing assistant. It’s natural to assume a narrow focus keeps you clear of a company that sells something broader under a similar name. A new Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decision shows why that assumption can fail.

On October 19, 2026, in In re Subsup Pte. Ltd., Serial No. 98680779, the Board affirmed a refusal to register TALKIE for downloadable AI chatbot software under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act, finding a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark TALKIE.AI and design. Judge Christopher C. Larkin wrote the opinion. The decision is not precedential, so it doesn’t bind future panels.

Narrow goods, broad registration

The applicant’s goods included “downloadable computer chatbot software for simulating conversations in the field of entertainment, education, creative writing, role-playing, and personal companionship.” The cited registration covered, among other things, “downloadable computer chatbot and bot software for simulating conversation.”

The applicant argued that the registration, read as a whole, focused on specialized AI and healthcare-oriented features, unlike its non-medical chatbot. The Board followed the examining attorney instead. The registration’s broad wording encompasses the applicant’s narrower software, so the goods are legally identical. Once goods are identical, the Board presumes they move through the same trade channels to the same buyers. What the registrant actually sells, or emphasizes elsewhere in its list, doesn’t change that.

The marks: words count more than designs

The cited mark combines words with a design. The Board gave the wording more weight, since buyers use words to ask for products. Because the applicant applied in standard characters, it could display TALKIE in the same style as the registrant. The marks sound alike, and both suggest talking or chatting. The Board said the “.AI” suffix simply identifies one party to the conversation. That factor “strongly” favored refusal.

Four registrations didn’t make a crowded field

The applicant argued TALKIE is weak, pointing to the four other TALKIE-formative registrations cited in the refusal. Those registrations came from only two other owners. The Board held that two sources aren’t enough to show a “crowded field” or to narrow the registrant’s protection. It also presumed the registered mark is inherently distinctive, at worst suggestive, because it registered without proof of acquired distinctiveness. With no factor favoring the applicant, the refusal stood.

This echoes the lesson from our recent ZEN WAFFLES post: a weakness argument needs real evidence of widespread use by different businesses.

Takeaways for Iowa software and AI founders

• Search the broad categories, not just your niche. A registration for chatbot software in general can block your chatbot for a specific market.
• Read the identification of goods literally. The Board compares what the registration says, not how the owner markets its product.
• Don’t count on a suffix or a design. Adding “.AI” or a logo rarely separates two marks that share the same word.
• Build weakness evidence early, or pick a stronger name. A crowded-field argument needs many independent users, shown with registrations and real-world use.
• Clear the name before you build the brand. A refusal after launch can mean a costly rename across your app store listing, domain, and marketing.

Our trademarks overview and guide to registering a trademark cover clearance and filing basics. When you settle on a name, see why to secure your domain before you file.

Sources: commentary on the TTABlog and the TTABVUE docket for Serial No. 98680779.

Talk with Iowa trademark counsel

Jason Sytsma helps Iowa software companies, startups, and consumer brands clear, register, and protect 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.