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 summarized below. How do you think these came out? By the way, do you see any "WYHA?" cases here?
In re Pavestone Company, LP, Serial No. 77827139 (August 1, 2012) [not precedential] [Refusal of VENETIAN STONE "concrete building materials, namely, interlocking concrete pavers" [STONE disclaimed] in view of the registered mark VENEZIAN (in stylized form) for, inter alia, building stone, granite, paving stone, stone for building and construction].
In re Sick AG, Serial No. 85041954 (August 1, 2012) [not precedential] [VISTAL for housings for various electronic sensing devices, refused registration over VISTA for "optical and/or electric sensor for sensing cells engraved or used in the engraving and printing industries"].
In re SWIMC, Inc., Serial No. 85016796 (August 2, 2012) [not precedential] [COMPLETE for automotive paints refused registration in view of KILZ COMPLETE for paint primer].
In re Jonathan M. Klokow, Serial No. 77850282 (August 7, 2012) [not precedential] [MOO DA CHAINZ for “hats; T-shirts” refused registration over MOODA CHAINZ for "clothing, namely, tops, pants, shorts, skirts, dresses, hats, caps, jackets, coats, headwear, underwear, sleepwear, and footwear"].
In re Forte Solutions Group, LLC, Serial No. 76699385 (August 7, 2012) [not precedential] [PLAN4 for "business planning services" refused registered in light of PLAN4DEMAND for "business consulting services"].
TTABlog hint: One was reversed.
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2012.