Test Your TTAB Judge-Ability: Which of These Three Section 2(d) Refusals Did the Board Reverse?
Let's see if you can predict the outcome of these three Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion appeals just by looking at the marks and the identified goods, without more. [The last time I did this, some readers were miffed that I didn't provide the answer right in the blog post. Well, I'll tell you that one of the three refusals was reversed. Which one? See the comment below, but don't peek.]
In re Smith & Vandiver Corp., Serial No. 77492026 (November 29, 2011) [not precedential]. Refusal to register SKIN NUTRITION for non-medicated toilet preparations, namely, hand and body soaps, skin cleansers, and the like, in view of the registered marks NATURE'S SKIN NUTRITION and NUTRIMAX SKIN NUTRITION for identical products, owned by two different registrants. [SKIN NUTRITION disclaimed in both registered marks].
In Revolution Energy Solutions LLC, Serial No. 76696032 (December 5, 2011) [not precedential]. Refusal to register REVOLUTION E BUILDING for building materials for agricultural uses, including swine, dairy and poultry farms, in light of the registered mark REVOLUTION "primarily non-metal, transportable, semipermanent, span fabric roofed buildings."
In re Savage Tales Entertainment, LLC, Serial No. 77816357 (December 8, 2011) [not precedential]. Refusal to register PETER CANNON THUNDERBOLT for "comic books; comic magazines; graphic novels; posters; trading cards" in view of the registered mark THUNDERBOLTS for "publications, namely, comic books and comic magazines and printed stories in illustrated form featured in books and magazines; posters."
TTABlog comment: The last two were affirmed. Note that the first case is a reverse-Knight Textile situation. [TTABlogged here] In Knight Textile, the mark NAUGHTON MCNAUGHTON ESSENTIALS was deemed registrable over ESSENTIALS for clothing, due to the weakness of the mark ESSENTIALS.
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2011.