Test Your TTAB Judge-Ability on these Three 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. Let’s put that theory to the test once again. Three Section 2(d) appeals are summarized below. How do you think they came out? By the way, do you see any "WYHA?" cases? Post your comment here.


In re Henkel Corp., Serial No. 77408579 (December 19, 2012) [not precedential]. [Refusal to register GOT2B GUARDIAN ANGEL for "hair care preparations; hair styling preparations," in view of the registered mark GUARDIAN ANGEL for "cosmetics, namely, skin moisturizers."

In re Mark F. McInerney, Serial No. 76704063 (December 18, 2012) [not precedential]. [Refusal to register TROPICAL HOLD EM for "equipment sold as a unit for playing a card game within a casino" [“HOLD EM” disclaimed], in view of the registered mark TROPICAL STUD and Design for "poker games" [STUD disclaimed].

In re Shaghal, Ltd. , Serial No. 85192335 (December 17, 2012) [not precedential]. [Refusal to register THE TWIG for "headsets for mobile telephones, MP3 players and MP4 players," in view of the registered mark TWIG for, in relevant part, "telecommunication and communication apparatus and instruments, hand-held personal computers and palm organizers; mobile telephones, cordless telephones"].

TTABlog hint: They all came out the same way.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2013