“When marks would appear on virtually identical goods or services, the degree of similarity necessary to support a conclusion of likely confusion declines.” Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 877 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Pink Lady Corp. v. L.N. Renault & Sons, Inc., 265 F.2d 951, 953 (CCPA 1959) (similarity or dissimilarity of the goods “is logically a factor of considerable importance to be given much weight in reaching the ultimate conclusion” (citation omitted)).

Where different marks have shared segments that are conceptually and/or commercially weak, and thus entitled to only a narrow scope of protection, such mark may be distinguished on the bases of minute distinctions. Omaha Steaks Int'l, Inc. v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., 908 F.3d 1315, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 

The TTAB recently found a likelihood of confusion between "highly similar" marks (where the shared segment was "conceptually and commercially weak") for "identical" goods because "the marks, as wholes, are just too close." In re Leskro Incorporated, Ser. No. 98644460 (TTAB Sept. 1, 2026).

The applied-for mark was KATIE'S KANDY KORNER for “Candies; Candy; Chocolate; Chocolate bars; Hard candies; Milk chocolate; Snack cakes”; and the cited mark was CAROL'S CANDY CORNER for “Candy; Chocolate; Candies; Candy bars; Chocolate and chocolates; Chocolate bars; Chocolate bunnies; Chocolate truffles; Confectioneries, namely, snack foods, namely, chocolate; Confectionery, namely, candy and chocolate; Chocolate candies; Chocolates and chocolatebased ready to eat candies and snacks; Filled chocolate; Fruit jelly candy; Gift baskets containing candy; Gummy candies; Hard candies; Milk chocolate; Rock candy.” 

     We agree with Applicant that the shared component “CANDY CORNER” / “KANDY KORNER” is weak. “Candy” is generic for candy, and the term “corner” in “Candy Corner” for entities selling candy to the public is suggestive in the sense that it conjures an image where the candy is sold in a hometown-type establishment with a friendly, neighborhood vibe. So the term “Candy Corner” (or slightly different spellings of the term) is conceptually weak in the context of candy sales.

     The fourteen third-party uses also are probative to show that “Candy Corner” is fairly weak in the marketplace as well (commercial weakness). 

As for Katie and Carol:

The two names may be different, but they still have significant similarities. As noted above, both are two syllables each, begin with a “k” / “hard c” sound, are in possessive form, and are an integral part of the alliterative nature and cadence of each mark. Viewing them in light of the “fallibility of memory” that kicks in when consumers depend on their recollection of marks to which they've previously been exposed, we disagree with Applicant. The differences Applicant highlights in the female names pale in comparison to the overall similarities in the marks—and it's not a close question.

Accordingly, the TTAB found the marks to be "highly similar when viewed in their entireties" which, in light of the identity of the goods, outweighed the weakness of the shared CANDY CORNER segment.