Board dismisses AURI application challenge after finding gummies unrelated to institute’s services

Decision Desk · October 8, 2026 decision · Nonprecedential

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) is the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office panel that decides challenges to trademark registrations and appeals from refused applications. The Board marked this opinion nonprecedential, meaning it does not bind the Board in later cases.

Ejec Ventures, LLC applied to register AURI for nutritional supplements in the form of gummies. Agricultural Utilization Research Institute brought an opposition, a challenge to an application before registration, claiming consumers might confuse the source of the gummies with its services. The Board dismissed the challenge because the institute did not prove the claimed risk of confusion. Opinion, pp. 1–3.

Source: the Board’s complete opinion in case 91292154, with page citations below. This report describes the decision; it is not legal advice.

The Board found the marks similar in appearance, sound and meaning, with AURI the main wording in the institute’s two marks. It nevertheless found the institute’s services unrelated to Ejec’s gummies and no overlap in how the parties reached customers. Opinion, pp. 32, 77.

One of the institute’s registered marks covered agricultural research, product development and testing involving food and other agricultural products. The other covered seminars and other educational events about agricultural innovation and research. Opinion, pp. 2–3.

The institute argued that its mushroom and supplement development projects and other companies’ registered marks showed a connection between its services and Ejec’s gummies. It also said 102 emails and calls showed people confusing the two organizations. Ejec said the institute had shown no connection between its services and the gummies. It said the misdirected messages reflected careless online searches for contact details. Opinion, pp. 35, 56, 59.

The Board found that the other registered marks covering educational services did not cover the institute’s field of agricultural education. It found one other company’s registered mark insufficient to show that gummies and the institute’s research services were related. The institute’s client projects also did not show that buyers saw its marks on the clients’ finished products. Opinion, pp. 40, 42, 45.

The Board found that gummies were sold to individual consumers while the institute served agricultural institutions and businesses. It found no meaningful overlap in their customers. The Board found that the many emails and calls could just as readily reflect careless online searches as a belief that the institute sold Ejec’s gummies. The institute did not contact the senders and callers to learn why they had reached it, and the Board gave the messages limited weight. Opinion, pp. 51–52, 75.

The Board dismissed the challenge to Ejec’s application. It said it could offer no remedy for confusion tied to the parties’ website addresses because neither address was at issue as a trademark. Opinion, pp. 66, 78.

This report describes the decision as issued; it does not follow any later appeal.

Sources

• The Board’s complete opinion; GleanMark case record.