Wednesday, August 01, 2007

TTAB Posts August 2007 Hearing Schedule

The TTAB has scheduled six hearings for the month of August, as listed below. The hearings will be held in the East Wing of the Madison Building. [The hearing schedule and other details regarding attendance may be found at the TTAB website (lower right-hand corner)]. Briefs and other papers for these cases may be found at TTABVUE via the links provided..

August 8, 2007 - 10:30 AM: In re Annie's Homegrown, Inc., Serial No. 78524961 [Section 2(e)(1) refusal of FRUIT BUNNIES as merely descriptive of dehydrated fruit snacks that Applicant concedes will be shaped like bunnies].

August 14, 2007 - 11 AM: In re Microvision Optical, Inc., Serial No. 78519618 [Section 2(d) refusal of FRAMELOCK for eyeglass frames and fasteners, in view of the registered mark FRAMELOC for fasteners, namely, metal screws].

August 21, 2007 - 10 AM: In re Mid-America Group, Ltd., Serial No. 78462025 [Section 2(d) refusal to register MID-AMERICA GROUP & Design for real estate development services, in light of the registered mark MA MID-AMERICA & Design for real estate brokerage and management services].

August 21, 2007 - 11 AM: In re Tele-Town Hall, LLC, Serial No. 78897251 [Section 2(d) refusal of TELE TOWN HALL for "Internet telephony services; telephone conferencing services," in view of the registered mark THT TOWNHALL TELECONFERENCING & Design for "Telecommunications Services, namely audio, video, web and streaming teleconferencing"].

August 21, 2007 - 2 PM: In re Alternative Processing Systems, Inc., Serial No. 78556095 [Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusal of AT STORE RECLAMATION for "inventory control services, namely, unsaleable damaged goods reclamation services"].

August 22, 2007 - 10 AM: Nextel Communications, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., Opposition No. 91161817 [Opposition to registration of a sensory mark comprising an electronic chirp consisting of a tone at 911 Hz played at a cadence of 25 ms ON, 25 ms OFF, 25 ms ON, 25 ms OFF, 50 ms ON, for two-way radios. Opposer contends that the tone does not function as a trademark, and that the tone is not inherently distinctive and has not acquired distinctiveness].

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2007.


Post a Comment

<< Home