Tuesday, February 04, 2014

TTAB Posts February 2014 Hearing Schedule

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has scheduled 6 (six) oral hearings for the month of February, as listed below. The hearings will be held in the East Wing of the Madison Building, in Alexandria, Virginia. The hearing schedule and other details regarding attendance may be found at the TTAB website (lower right-hand corner)]. Briefs and other papers for these cases may be found at TTABVUE via the links provided.

February 11, 2014 - 2 PM: In re OnForce, Inc., Serial No. 85422547 [Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusal of FIELD SERVICES CLOUD for "“Providing a virtual marketplace connecting businesses and consumers with providers of goods and services via global computer networks, wireless networks, email or telephone; promoting the goods and services of others via global computer networks, wireless networks and email; providing a website whereby buyers and sellers transact business, monitor progress of goods and services, and provide evaluative feedback; providing real-time business information about companies, industries and markets; providing online business information directories featuring service providers and service buyers such as computer manufacturers and retailers; providing an interactive website on a global computer network for service providers to post information about their services and qualifications for providing the services, respond to service requests from third parties, and place and fulfill orders for products, services and business opportunities"].

February 13, 2014 - 11 AM: Multi Access Limited v. Wang Lao Ji Food & Beverage subsidiary, Yangcheng Pharmaceutical Stock Corp. Ltd of Guangzhou, Cancellation No. 92054959 [Petition to cancel a registration for the mark shown below [transliteration: WANG LAO JI] for "processed tea leaves packaged in bags," on the ground of fraud in that a Section 8 Declaration of Use for said registration was fraudulently signed by one Kevin Whang as "Owner" of the mark when he was neither owner of the mark or authorized to practice before the USPTO].

February 13, 2014 - 2 PM: In re Nieves & Nieves LLC, Serial No. 85179243 [Two refusals to register PRINCESS KATE for jewelry, bedding, wallets, handbags, and the like, and clothing, on the grounds that (1) under Section 2(a) because the mark may falsely suggest a connection with Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, the wife of Prince William of England, and (2) under Section 2(c) because the mark consists of or includes a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular living individual whose written consent to register the mark is not of record].

February 19, 2014 - 2 PM: In re Drew Estate Holding Company LLC, Serial No. 77840485 [Section 2(e)(3) refusal to register KUBA KUBA BY DREW ESTATE on the ground that the mark is primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive of "Cigars made with Cuban seed tobacco"]  [Note that in In re Jonathan Drew, Inc. d/b/a Drew Estate 97 USPQ2d 1640 (TTAB 2011) [precedential], the Board found the mark KUBA KUBA to be primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive of cigars].

February 20, 2014 - 10 AM: In re Capital Brands, LLC, Serial No. 85252748 [Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusal of BLU BALLS for “Prepared alcoholic cocktail"].

February 20, 2014 - 11 AM: In re Zooborns LLC, Serial No. 85056841[Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusal of ZooBorns for "Children's books; Educational books featuring animals; Picture books," rejecting applicant's claim of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f)].

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog comment: Any predictions? Any WYHAs?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2014.


At 10:12 AM, Anonymous Gene Bolmarcich, Esq. said...

Since you asked:

In re OnForce - refusal upheld

MAL v WLJ - petition granted

In re N&N - refusal upheld

In re DEHC - refusal upheld

In re CB - refusal reversed

In re Zooborns - refusal reversed (as to 2(f))

I don't actually think any of these cases are even close calls. I also picked Denver to win the Super Bowl.

At 10:24 AM, Blogger John L. Welch said...

If the petition is granted in MAL v WLJ, it would be the Board's first finding of fraud in nearly 4.5 years - since In re Bose.

At 10:37 AM, Anonymous Gene Bolmarcich, Esq. said...

Then of course I meant to write "petition denied"! In all seriousness, that was the one case on which I was shooting from the hip (given how fact intensive fraud is, without thoroughly reading all the papers one can not possibly provide an opinion on that case). With that revision I still say none of these are close :)


Post a Comment

<< Home