The New York Times Company v. Worldle LLC — TTAB Refuses WORLDLE Registration Because It Is Likely to Be Confused With WORDLE

Background

Worldle LLC applied to register WORLDLE for online, non-downloadable game software. The New York Times Company opposed the application under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act, relying on its registered WORDLE mark for downloadable software used to play word-puzzle games.

Worldle argued that its geography game differed from the Times’s word game, that consumers could distinguish the spelling and pronunciation, and that several other game names use an “-ordle” ending. It also emphasized that the two games had coexisted for roughly four years without documented confusion.

The Court’s Holding

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board sustained the opposition, so WORLDLE cannot proceed to registration on this application. The Board found that WORLDLE and WORDLE are quite similar in appearance, sound, and overall commercial impression. The extra letter “L” did not create enough distance, particularly because consumers could view WORLDLE as a variation or extension of WORDLE.

The Board also found the parties’ software closely related. One product was described as downloadable and the other as online and non-downloadable, but both were game software offered to the general public. Their low-cost, easily accessed nature increased the likelihood of impulse selection. Although the record did not show overlapping trade channels, that point did not outweigh the similarity of the marks and products.

WORDLE’s substantial marketplace recognition strengthened the Times’s case. The absence of reported actual confusion carried limited weight because both games were free and users had little incentive to report mistaken assumptions about source or affiliation. The Board stressed that the case concerned the WORLDLE brand, not whether Worldle LLC could offer a geography game using a similar gameplay format.

Key Takeaways

• A small spelling difference may not prevent confusion when marks look and sound alike and suggest a brand extension.
• Downloadable and browser-based software can be closely related even when their technical delivery methods differ.
• A lack of reported confusion is less persuasive when consumers use free, low-stakes products and have little reason to complain.

Why It Matters

The decision shows the trademark risk of naming a digital product as an obvious variation on a famous game mark. Developers may lawfully borrow an unprotected game concept, but branding remains a separate issue. A name that signals connection with an established product can block federal registration even if the games focus on different subject matter.

The opinion is nonprecedential, but its analysis offers a practical warning for app and game creators: clearance should consider how ordinary users hear and interpret a name, not merely whether the spelling and product description are technically distinct.

Surfaced via Law360 IP.