Friday, November 22, 2013

Current List of TTAB Opposition Decisions on Appeal to the CAFC

I gather (with the help of Alex Samuel and others) that there are currently pending before the CAFC, five (5) appeals  from TTAB decisions in opposition proceedings. The cases are summarized below, with links to the pertinent TTABvue pages where the decisions may be found, as well as to the pertinent TTABlog postings, if any. [Appeal briefs and other papers may be found via PACER; Oral argument recordings may be found here, if any].


Stone Lion Capital Partners v. Lion Capital LLP, Appeal No. 13-1353 (Opposition No. 91191681). [The Board sustained this opposition to registration of STONE LION CAPITAL for "financial services, namely, investment advisory services, management of investment funds, and fund investment services" [CAPITAL disclaimed], finding the mark likely to cause confusion with the registered marks LION and LION CAPITAL for various financial services [CAPITAL disclaimed]].

StonCor Group, Inc. v. Specialty Coatings, Inc., Appeal No. 13-1448 (Opposition No. 91187787). [The Board dismissed this opposition to ARMORSTONE for "clear and pigmented coatings used in the nature of paint; Glazes; House paint; Interior paint; Mixed paints; Paint for concrete floors; Paint primers; Paint sealers; Paint thinner; Paints; Paints and lacquers; Pavement striping paint; Epoxy coating for use on concrete industrial floors," finding it not likely to cause confusion with the registered mark STONCLAD, STONHARD, and STONSHIELD for goods that include epoxy hardeners; and also finding the applied-for mark not merely descriptive of applicant's epoxy coatings].

Costantine v. C.F.M. Distributing Company, Appeal No. 13-1467 (Opposition No. 91185766). [In this complicated case concerning ownership of the two marks shown immediately below, for restaurant services, the Board sustained Opposer Constantine's oppositions, ruling that applicant was not the owner of the marks at the time the applications were filed, and consequently, both of the opposed applications were void ab initio]. [TTABlogged here].

Cutino v. Nightlife Media, Inc., Appeal No. 13-1541 (Opposition No. 91186025). [Dismissal of a Section 2(d) opposition to registration of NIGHTLIFE TELEVISION for "Video-on-demand transmission services, Internet broadcasting services, broadcasting services, namely, broadcasting programs over a global computer network to mobile telephones and computers, Satellite television broadcasting, and Television broadcasting," in view of the registered marks LONG ISLAND’S NIGHTLIFE (Stylized) [LONG ISLAND disclaimed] and NEW YORK'S NIGHTLIFE [NEW YORK'S disclaimed] for monthly magazines].

Implant Direct Int'l v. Clear Choice Holdings LLC, Appeal No. 14-1071 (Opposition No. 91190485) [The Board sustained this Section 2(d) opposition to registration of the mark REAL CHOICE, finding confusion likely with the registered mark CLEARCHOICE DENTAL IMPLANTS, both for dental implant services [DENTAL IMPLANTS disclaimed in the registered mark]. [TTABlogged here].

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog note:  See any WHYA?s here?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2013.


Post a Comment

<< Home