Monday, May 21, 2012

Test Your TTAB Judge-Ability on These Five Section 2(d) Appeals

Some say that one may predict the outcome of a Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion case just by looking at the marks and the goods or services involved. Once again, let's put that theory to the test with the five Section 2(d) appeals set out below. How do you think the these came out? Do you see any "WYHA?" cases here?

In re Lion Global Investors Limited, Serial No. 79063620 (May 9, 2012) [not precedential]. [Refusal of LION GLOBAL INVESTORS and Design for, inter alia, investment management and financial advisory services for pension funds, endowment funds, trust funds and assets of accredited or institutional investors [GLOBAL INVESTORS disclaimed], in view of the registered mark LION for investment management services, financial and investment planning and research, and trust services, namely, investment and trust company services].

In re 24/7 Eats, LLC, Serial No. 85066363 (May 8, 2012) [not precedential]. [Refusal of THE HIGHLINER for "restaurant services" (class 43) in view of HIGHLINER COFFEE CO for "cafe services; and carryout restaurant services featuring coffee, candy and baked goods" (class 42)].

In re The Border Cafe of Texas, Inc., Serial No. 85104508 (May 1, 2012) [not precedential]. [Refusal of LA CASITA MEXICAN GRILL for "restaurant services" [MEXICAN GRILL disclaimed] in view of LA CASITA MEXICANA in standard character and design form for "restaurant services and catering services" [MEXICANA disclaimed].

In re Xaviant, LLC, Serial No. 77820474 (April 30, 2012) [not precedential]. [Refusal of X (Stylized) for interactive video game devices and Internet entertainment services in the field of video games, in view of the registered mark X for downloadable computer games and video games, and for the provision of information on the video game and computer game industries via the Internet].

In re Active Medics Inc., Serial No. 77767314 (April 30, 2012) [not precedential]. [Refusal of ACTIVLASH "eyelash conditioner" in view of ACTILASH for "cosmetic preparations for eye lashes"].

TTABlog hint: They all came out the same way.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2012.


At 11:14 AM, Anonymous Patrick said...

They must have all been affirmed.

At 5:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course they were all affirmed. The odds of getting a refusal on a 2D must be less than 1 in 10. John, is it less than 1 in 10?

At 5:34 PM, Blogger John L. Welch said...

I'd say that 85% of 2d refusals are affirmed on appeal.


Post a Comment

<< Home