TTAB Test: Which One of These Three Section 2(d) Refusals Was Reversed?
Allegedly, one may predict the outcome of a Section 2(d) appeal, nine times out of ten, by simply looking at the marks and the identified goods or services. Here are three recent appeals from Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion refusals. One was reversed. Which one? [Answer in first comment].
In re Thriveon, Serial No. 86178339 (August 27, 2015) [not precedential] [Refusal to register THRIVEON for 'computer services, namely, remote and on-site management of information technology (IT) systems of others," in view of the registered mark shown below for "Information technology technical support services and consulting, namely, troubleshooting in the nature of diagnosing of computer hardware and software problem ...." [NETWORKS disclaimed]].
In re Dretzka, Serial No. 86396440 (August 28, 2015) [not precedential] [Refusal to register INSPIRED GRIT for "education services, namely, providing live and on-line coaching, training, seminars, courses, retreats, camps,and workshops in the field of personal development as it relates to helping people identify, set, and achieve personal life goals; providing live and on-line coaching in the field of personal development, namely, life coaching services in the field of self-realization, talent utilization, and finding personal satisfaction in one’s life," in view of the registered mark GRIT
for "educational services, namely, developing and conducting seminars and workshops in the field of leadership, teamwork and customer service"].
In re Fourstar Group USA Inc., Serial No. 86248063 (August 28, 2015) [not precedential] [Refusal to register FUNOVATIONS for “Mechanical toys; Wind-up toys", in view of the registered mark shown below, for, inter alia, "Action skill games"].
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog comment: Well, how did you do?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2015.