Goods need not be identical or even competitive to support finding a likelihood of confusion. On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2000). It is sufficient if “the respective goods are related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that they emanate from the same source.” Coach Servs. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). 

Evidence of relatedness may include news articles and/or evidence from computer databases showing that the relevant goods are used together or used by the same purchasers; advertisements showing that the relevant goods are advertised together or sold by the same manufacturer or dealer; and/or copies of prior use-based registrations of the same mark for the goods listed in both the subject application and the cited registration. In re Country Oven, Inc., No. 87354443, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 381, at *5; see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (evidence that “a single company sells the goods and services of both parties, if presented, is relevant to a relatedness analysis”).

The TTAB recently found that "Body lotions" in International Class 3 were related to "Nutritional supplements" in International Class 5 based on five use-based registrations for third-party marks that identified both goods, and internet evidence showing thirteen instances where the same entity commonly provided these goods under the same mark. In re Garrett Gutierrez, Ser. No. 98666953 (TTAB Aug. 27, 2026). The TTAB concluded that this evidence showed that "consumers may encounter entities offering both skin lotions, washes, moisturizers, and toners as well as nutritional or dietary supplements under the same mark in the marketplace."

      This same third-party use and registration evidence also shows that the products are complementary in nature and closely related insofar as dietary and nutritional supplements and topical skincare (i.e. lotions, washes, moisturizers, and toners) are advertised and typically used together as part of a single skin care or health regimen or routine. See, e.g., In re Davia, No. 85497617, 2014 TTAB LEXIS 214, at *21-24 (pepper sauce and agave related where evidence showed both were used for the same purpose in the same recipes and thus consumers were likely to purchase the products at the same time and in the same stores); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., No. 79046106, 2009 TTAB LEXIS 447, at *17 (medical MRI diagnostic apparatus and medical ultrasound devices are related, based in part on the fact that such goods have complementary purposes and may be used by same medical personnel on same patients to address same medical issue).

There was no contrary evidence submitted by the Applicant. Instead, the Applicant made legal arguments relying on Vital Pharms., Inc. v. Kronholm, No. 91181806, 2011 TTAB LEXIS 207, where the Board found that “nutritional supplements and cosmetics, perfumes and fragrances” were not related. But the TTAB noted that case was distinguishable because "there is no evidence [in Vital] that nutritional supplements and cosmetics, perfumes and fragrances would be sold in the same department or be situated near each other; nor is there evidence that the goods are complementary or would otherwise be purchased together, such that consumers would encounter both types of products in the course of a single shopping trip." Vital Pharms., 2011 TTAB LEXIS 207, at *15-16. 

The takeaway by the TTABlog was: "you can't win without evidence!"

An example of contrary evidence to rebut relatedness is a “pattern of registrations” third-party registrations for the same or similar marks, owned by different entities, separately covering the two respective classes of goods or services could serve to rebut evidence of relatedness of the goods. See Keebler Company v. Associated Biscuits Limited, 207 USPQ 1034 (TTAB 1980) (noting that a “pattern of registrations does, however, exemplify long-standing and extensive practice within the Patent and Trademark Office and, necessarily, equally long-standing beliefs … of business people that the uses of those marks would be feasible and helpful in their businesses”); In re Thor Tech, Inc., Ser. No. 85667188, 2015 TTAB LEXIS 18, at *13 (TTAB 2015) (“cannot conclude on this evidentiary record [of two third party registrations] that consumers would assume a common source for the goods” in view of contrary evidence of record consisting of fifty sets of third-party registrations for the same or similar marks, owned by different entities, and covering automobiles, trucks or sport utility vehicles on the one hand and recreational vehicles, travel trailers, and/or motor homes on the other); Thor Tech, Inc. v. Thor Boats, LLC, Opposition No. 91283957 (TTAB Apr. 24, 2025) (15 examples of the same or similar names for boats and for recreational vehicles used by two unrelated entities "may be viewed as 'akin to the opinion manifested by knowledgeable businessmen' that confusion is unlikely from such concurrent use.'"). 

Interestingly, in In re Daniel T. Phuoc, Ser. No. 77356068 (TTAB Apr. 29, 2009), the TTAB found that "medicated lotions" were not related to a "cosmetics" because the record in that case was "entirely devoid of evidence that the involved goods are related"; and went so far as to note: "even if applicant's medicated lotion were to be considered a 'cosmetic,' the mere fact that applicant's and registrant's goods might belong to the broad category of cosmetics does not require the conclusion that they are related products. Such a relationship must be established in each case to avoid a per se rule for all cosmetics."