Test Your TTAB Judge-Ability On These Four Section 2(d) Refusals
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 recently-decided appeals, keeping in mind that, by my estimate, about 85% of Section 2(d) refusals are affirmed by the Board. [Answer in first comment].
In re Santini Fine Wines, Inc., Serial No. 85592838 (October 29, 2014) [not precedential]. [Refusal to register the mark LEONESSA for wine, in view of the registered mark LEONESS CELLARS (Stylized) for "bottles of wine, namely, wine sold in bottles" [CELLARS disclaimed]].
In re DNA Consulting LLC, Serial No. 85574196 (October 27, 2014) [not precedential]. [Refusal to register CELEBRITY SOUR for "alcoholic beverages, namely, pre-mixed alcoholic cocktails," in view of the registered mark CELEBRITY CELLARS for wine [CELLARS disclaimed]].
In re Evolved Ingenuity, LLC, Serial No. 85807923 (October 22, 2014) [not precedential]. [Refusal to register RECON for "hunting blinds and hunting tree stands" in view of the identical mark registered for "crossbows"].
In re CreditPal, LLC, Serial No. 77900983 (October 15, 2014) [not precedential]. [Refusal to register CreditPal, in standard character form, for "advisory services relating to credit and debit control, investment, grants and financing of loans; consumer credit consultation," in view of the registered mark CREDITPAL & Design for, inter alia accountancy services and provision of business information for credit, finance and insurance evaluation and analysis].
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog Comment: Would You Have Appealed any of these refusals?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2014.