More than 100 misdirected emails and phone calls intended for another business might sound like powerful evidence of trademark confusion. But numbers alone do not tell the whole story.
In Agricultural Utilization Research Institute v. Ejec Ventures, LLC, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB or Board) examined the distinction between source confusion and careless Internet searching. Its decision dismissing the opposition offers a practical lesson for brand owners: When documenting potential confusion, the explanation for a mistaken contact can matter more than the tally.
The Evidence: Misdirected Contacts, but Why?
The dispute concerned Ejec Ventures’ application to register AURI for “nutritional supplements in the form of gummies” and the Agricultural Utilization Research Institute’s (Institute) AURI-formative design marks for agricultural research, consulting and educational services. The Institute identified 102 purported instances of actual confusion between January 2023 and July 2025. They included misdirected emails and telephone calls intended for Ejec Ventures, ranging from consumer questions about gummy orders, subscriptions, refunds and deliveries to inquiries from prospective wholesalers and resellers.
The Board, however, declined to infer source confusion from the misdirected inquiries alone. The question was not simply whether people had contacted the wrong business but whether those contacts reflected a mistaken belief about the source or sponsorship of Ejec Ventures’ goods.
The Institute generally had not followed up with the individuals to determine why they had contacted it, leaving a plausible alternative explanation: inattentive Internet searching. Without evidence clarifying the reasons for the mistakes, the Board gave the inquiries limited probative value, treated the actual-confusion DuPont factor as neutral and ultimately dismissed the opposition.
Key Lessons for Brand Owners:
- Connect the mistake to source or sponsorship. Evidence should go beyond asserting that someone contacted the wrong business; it should explain whether the person believed the businesses or their offerings were connected.
- Investigate what caused the mistaken contact. Follow-up testimony or other corroborating evidence may help distinguish trademark confusion from an Internet search error or simple carelessness.
- Preserve context, not just a count. Retain original emails, voicemails and contemporaneous notes of telephone calls, including any explanation of how the person found your business and whom they intended to reach.
Misdirected inquiries can be useful evidence, but their weight depends on what they reveal about the person’s understanding. For brand owners, the lesson is to document not just that someone contacted the wrong business but why.
