Test Your TTAB Judge-Ability: Which One of These Three Section 2(d) Refusals Did the TTAB Reverse?
Here we go again! Take a look at these three ex parte appeals from Section 2(d) refusals, two of which were affirmed by the Board, the other reversed. Let's see if you come up with the same results based on a quick look at the marks and the goods/services involved. [See comments for answer].
In re Iris Music Group, Serial No. 77021415 (June 20, 2011) [not precedential]. [Section 2(d) refusal of IRIS MUSIC GROUP for entertainment services, including providing prerecorded music on-line via a global computer network, music production services, production of sound and music video recordings, and record production [MUSIC GROUP disclaimed], in view of the registered mark IRIS RECORDS for "compact discs, audio cassettes, [phonograph] records, and prerecorded video tapes featuring musical and vocal performances"].
In re Bioenergy, Inc., Serial No. 77503783 (June 22, 2011) [not precedential]. [Refusal of REJUVALEN (Stylized) for skin cream, on the ground of likely confusion with the registered mark REJUVALINE for "non-medicated ingredients sold as an integral component of cosmetics and non-medicated skin care preparations"].
In re Mike Tonche, Serial No. 77730883 (June 24, 2011) [not precedential]. [Section 2(d) refusal of STREETLIGHT CLOTHING for "clothing, namely, T-shirts, sweatshirts, shirts, hats, pants, shorts, jackets, and caps” [CLOTHING disclaimed], in view of the registered mark STREETLIGHTS for "footwear incorporating a light feature"].
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2011.
posted by John L. Welch @ 7/08/2011
4 comments
4 Comments:
The answer is the third one. Although clothing and footwear are usually considered to be complementary goods, and although the EA submitted third-party registrations for marks covering clothing and footwear, there was no showing that "that the registrant’s particular type of footwear incorporating a light feature would be
purchased to complement the type of clothing items identified in applicant’s application, or that a consumer would purchase the identified clothing to complement his or her footwear."
John - I think that the analysis on the relatedness of the goods is absurd. Shoes with lights are still shoes. Not sure that you need third-party registrations or other evidence to prove that shoes with lights are complementary to other clothing. In my opinion, this case really turns on the commmercial impression created by the marks.
Darn it, wrong again!
It seems to me that the second should have been reversed. Ingredients in a product versus the product itself equals different trade channels and different consumers.
Post a Comment
<< Home