CAFC Hears Oral Argument in Chippendales' "Cuff & Collar" Appeal
On July 9th, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral argument [mp3 here] in the appeal from the TTAB's decision in In re Chippendales USA, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1535 (TTAB 2009) [precedential]. [TTABlogged here]. A divided TTAB panel affirmed the PTO's refusal to register the "Cuffs & Collar" design mark shown below, finding it not inherently distinctive for "adult entertainment services, namely exotic dancing for women in the nature of live performances." [Applicant Chippendales already owns an incontestable, Section 2(f) registration for the same mark; it was seeking to establish inherent distinctiveness this time around.]
Steve Feingold argued the case before the CAFC. You may recall that Steve took some heat when his client, Chippendales USA, Inc., sought to register its "Cuffs & Collar" mark on the basis of inherent distinctiveness. What was the point, since Chippendales already owned an incontestable, Section 2(f) registration for the same mark? Steve answered his critics here.
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2010.