Tuesday, October 16, 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 appeal 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In re HOB Entertainment, Inc., Serial No. 85002891 (September 18, 2012) [not precedential]. [Refusals to register KARMA KASH for coupons due to failure to disclaim KASH, and further on the ground of likelihood of confusion with the registered mark KARMA COUPONS [KARMA disclaimed], also for coupons].

In re PBC Supply, Inc., Serial No. 77435787 (September 18, 2012) [not precedential]. [Refusal to register MEDISLIM for "medically supervised weight loss and weight reduction program for patients" in view of the registered mark MEDSLIM MEDICALLY PRESCRIBED WEIGHT CONTROL RX and Design (shown below) for "clinic services for weight reduction, diet planning and program supervision" [MEDICALLY PRESCRIBED WEIGHT CONTROL and the representations of the caduceus and prescription symbol (RX) disclaimed].

In re Apple Inc., Serial No. 85019762 (September 18, 2012) [not precedential]. [Refusal to register the design mark shown on the left below, for "computer software for use in reviewing, storing, organizing, and playing pre-recorded audio content, sold as a feature of handheld mobile digital electronic devices  comprised of digital audio and video players, handheld computers, personal digital assistants, and electronic personal organizers," in view of the mark shown below right, registered for "providing temporary use of nondownloadable software for adding music and video profiles on the internet, for listening to MP3’s and for sharing MP3’s and music playlists with others"].

In re Griffin and Grossman, Serial No. 77850840 (September 20, 2012) [not precedential]. [Refusal of MAJOR MOJO for "apparel, namely, shirts, pants, jackets, footwear, hats and caps, athletic uniforms" in view of the registered mark MOJO "clothing, namely hats, shorts, tee-shirts, sweat shirts,jackets, coats, socks and infantwear"].

In re Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc., Serial No. 85034402 (September 20, 2012) [not precedential]. [Refusal of FERREX for "vitamin and mineral supplements" on the ground of likely confusion with the registered mark FERREX 18 "iron ingredient sold as an integral
component of a vitamin supplement"].

TTABlog hint: They all came out the same way.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2012.


At 8:15 PM, Blogger Marta said...

All sustained, yes?


Post a Comment

<< Home