Test Your TTAB Judge-Ability on Three Section 2(d) Appeals
I heard a TTAB judge say not long ago that the outcome of most Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion cases can be predicted just by looking at the marks and the identified goods/services, without more. Well, your would-be honor, try your skills on these three refusals:
In re Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc., Serial No. 77327252 (November 16, 2011) [not precedential]. Refusal to register KITTY NIBBLES for "cat treats" in view of the registered mark KITTEN LI'L NIBBLES for "cat food and cat treats."
In re Bernstein, Serial No. 77743350 (November 17, 2011) [not precedential]. Refusal to register WE THE PEOPLE PLAN for a website providing information about politics, on the ground of likely confusion with the registered mark WE THE PEOPLE for "promotion of public awareness of the need for political reform."
In re Sherwood Development Group LLC, Serial No. 77784128 (November 22, 2011) [not precedential]. Refusal of NOURISH KIDS for frozen food items, in view of the registered mark NOURISH for various food items, encompassing some of Applicant's goods].
TTABlog comment: Well how did you do? Here's a hint: all three cases came out the same way.
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2011.
posted by John L. Welch @ 12/13/2011
6 comments
6 Comments:
I expect they were all affirmed. How come you don't give the answer at least in the comments?
I didn't want to spoil the pleasure.
My original answer was reverse, affirm, affirm, but in view of your hint, I'll go with all three affirm
I vote affirm!
Close to WYHA territory?
I picked the first two for affirm for sure, which means they all must have been reversed because that's how good I am at this --
Post a Comment
<< Home