Monday, October 20, 2014

Test Your TTAB Judge-Ability On These Four Section 2(d) Appeals

I once heard a TTAB judge state that the outcomes 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. Try your adjudicatory 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In re Holland & Hart LLP, Serial No. 85709248 (October 16, 2014) [not precedential]. [Refusal to register BEYOND THE OBVIOUS for legal services, in view of the registered mark THINKING BEYOND THE OBVIOUS for business consultation services].

In re Joy Industrial Co., Ltd., Serial No. 85677182 (October 16, 2014) [not precedential]. [Refusal to register N NOVATEK & Design for bicycles and bicycle and motorcycle parts and accessories, in view of the registered mark NOVATECK for "tires, pneumatic, semi-pneumatic and solid tires for vehicle wheels, wheels for vehicles, inner tubes, wheel rims, and structural parts for all the aforesaid goods"].

In re Cardeologie, Inc., Serial No. 85826725 (October 16, 2014) [not precedential]. [Refusal to register CARDEOLOGIE for greeting cards, invitation cards, notecards, postcards, etc., and for related retail store services, in view of the registered mark CARDOLOGISTS for, inter alia, greeting cards and invitation cards]. 

In re The Rock Creek Group, LP, Serial No. 85595470 (October 6, 2014) [not precedential]. [Refusal to register THE ROCK CREEK GROUP for, inter alia, "individualized and personalized financial services provided to institutional investors, namely, sovereign wealth funds, state and local pension plans, multinational corporations, foundations and endowments," in view of the registered marks ROCK CREEK PROPERTY GROUP, LLC, in standard character and design form, for "real estate investment, management, and brokerage services" [PROPERTY GROUP, LLC 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.


At 10:48 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

imo: affirmed, affirmed, affirmed, affirmed

At 9:56 AM, Anonymous Joe Dreitler said...

agree, agree, agree and agree.

At 6:45 AM, Blogger John L. Welch said...

The third one, CITIZENS DISABILITY HELPLINE, was reversed. The others were affirmed.

At 11:54 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Read carefully ... the headline gives a clue that one case was reversed. : )

I answered correctly, FWIW.

At 1:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since I firmly believe that the identity of the parties plays a major role in these decisions I am never very surprised by any TTAB decision (not really relevant for these four examples - however). On number three the original registration was generic (IMHO) so it should not have been entitled to any scope for protection. The applied-for mark is not much better, but at least has some minimal distinction potential.


Post a Comment

<< Home