Test Your TTAB Judge-Ability On These Four Section 2(d) Appeals
I once heard a TTAB judge state that the outcome of most Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion cases can be predicted just by looking at the marks and the identified goods/services, without more. Well, your would-be honor, try your skills on these four appeals, keeping in mind that, by my estimate, about 85% of Section 2(d) refusals are affirmed by the Board.
In re Chicken Pickers, LLC, Serial No. 85593576 (March 4, 2014) [not precedential]. [Refusal to register ROCKY'S HOT CHICKEN SHACK for restaurant services [HOT CHICKEN disclaimed], in view of the registered mark ROCKY'S for restaurant and bar services.
In re Leisure Craft Industries, Inc., Serial No. 85384900 (March 12, 2014) [not precedential]. [Refusal to register WEATHERTEX for various items of clothing, including coats and trousers, in view of the registered mark WEATHERTECH for "industrial outerwear, namely, jackets, coats, vests, pants"].
In re Vera Vysosias, Serial No. 85309258 (March 17, 2014) [not precedential].[Refusal to register the mark shown below left, for "entertainment in the nature of basketball games," in view of the registered mark shown below right, for "entertainment in the nature of circleball games" [CIRCLEBALL disclaimed]].
In re Parker, Serial No. 85671566 (March 17, 2014) [not precedential]. [Refusal to register AFFORDABLE ORTHODONTICS for "dentist services," in view of the registered mark AFFORDABLE DENTURES for "dental services" [DENTURES disclaimed].
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog Big Hint: They all came out the same way. See any WYHA's here?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2014.