Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Test Your TTAB Judge-Ability On These Four 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 four 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In re Evonik Goldschmidt GmbH, Serial No. 85014843 (October 1, 2012) [not precedential]. [Refusal to register SK-INFLUXfor "chemical products for use in industry, namely, additives and auxiliary agents for the production of cosmetic and pharmaceutical products," in view of the registered marks shown below, the first for chemical additives for use in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and plastic molding compositions, and for synthetic resins for use in the manufacture of adhesive, paint, cosmetics and binder, and the second registration for "acetone and citric acid for industrial purposes"].

In re Akzo Nobel Coatings International B.V., Serial No. 85121039 (October 2, 2012) [not precedential]. [Refusal to register CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE for coatings, namely, non-aerosol interior and exterior paints, in view of the registered mark CONTRACTOR for protective and decorative coatings in the nature of aerosol paint].

In re Riotto, Serial No. 85144408 (October 9, 2012) [not precedential]. [Refusal to register TRIUMPH FITNESS and Design, shown below, for "personal fitness training services and consultancy; physical fitness studio services, namely, providing group exercise instruction, equipment, and facilities; providing fitness and exercise facilities" [FITNESS disclaimed], in view of the registered mark TEAM TRIUMPH for "sports club services, namely providing athletic instruction and training, member social events, and providing a website featuring sports competition information" [TEAM disclaimed]].

In re Shameless Swimwear, L.L.C, Serial Nos. 85262472 and 85262496 (October 11, 2012) [not precedential]. [Refusals of SHAMELESS SWIMWEAR for "swimwear, namely, high-end, haute couture bathing suits, bikinis, monokinis and cover-ups" [SWIMWEAR disclaimed] and of SHAMELESS COUTURE for "women's clothing, namely, high-end bathing suits, bikinis, monokinis, cover-ups, tops, shirts, blouses, dresses, skirts, pants, sweaters, scarves" [COUTURE disclaimed], in view of the registered mark SHAMELESS, in standard character form, for "clothing, namely, tops, shirts, dresses, skirts, pants, sweaters, and knit shirts."

TTABlog hint: Of the six refusals involved in these four appeals, one refusal was reversed.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2012.


At 1:04 PM, Blogger Mark D. Wagner said...

Um, maybe I'm missing something. It looks to me like all four refusals were affirmed.

At 1:05 PM, Blogger Mark D. Wagner said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

At 1:37 PM, Blogger Mark D. Wagner said...

Oh, I see. In In re Evonik Goldschmidt GmbH, there was a reversal as to the first of the two SK Design marks (the black and white one), but refusal was affirmed as to the second mark.

At 2:03 PM, Anonymous Michael Lovitz said...

I'm confused - you said one was reversed, but it seems that all were affirmed (as I expected).

At 2:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I looked at all four and they were all affirmed. Am I missing something here?

At 3:39 PM, Blogger John L. Welch said...

Have a little faith in the TTABlogger. Read the SK decision.


Post a Comment

<< Home