TTAB Test: Which One of These Three Section 2(d) Refusals Was Reversed?
Because tomorrow is a holiday [Thanksgiving], dear reader, we will have a shortened TTAB Test. Only three cases this time. One of these three Section 2(d) refusals was reversed. Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to figure out which one. [The answer will be found in the first comment].
In re Colorbar Cosmetics Private Limited, Serial No. 86323815 (November 20, 2015) [not precedential]. [Section 2(d) refusal of COLORBAR USA for a wide range of cosmetics [USA disclaimed], such as bath oils, beauty creams, and nail polish (but not goods that are specifically for hair care), in view of the registered marks THE COLOR BAR for "Hairdressing services and counseling namely, offering advise [sic] regarding hair color in salons" and CB COLORBAR THE SALON (Stylized), shown below, for "Beauty salon services; Beauty salons; Hair color salon services; Hair salon services; Hair salon services, namely, hair cutting, styling, coloring, and hair extension services."
In re Malkon, Serial No. 86572090 (November 20, 2015) [not precedential]. [Section 2(d) refusal of BAGWAGZZZ for "Beds for household pets; Portable beds for pets," in view of the registered mark THE WAG BAG for "portable pet beds" [BAG disclaimed]].
In re White Birch Vineyards, LLC, Serial No. 86218002 (November 4, 2015) [not precedential]. [Section 2(d) refusal of WHITE BIRCH for wine in view of the identical mark WHITE BIRCH registered for vodka [BIRCH disclaimed].
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog comment: Well, how did you do?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2015.
posted by John L. Welch @ 11/25/2015
10 comments
10 Comments:
The COLORBAR USA refusal was reversed.
Obviously, without even looking at the opinion - "COLOR BAR" is generic for hair-related services. The Board would and should never uphold a citation. The Examining Attorney was clearly forced to "stick" on this refusal. Law Office 120 is the the law office where all of the examiners are newbies without signatory authority who were hired and trained together as part of a cohort.
Wow ... I thought for sure it would be the matter involving dog beds. Love these tests!
Me too. I guessed the dog bed case.
I'm with Tom on this one.
Funny - my guess was wine vs. vodka. Likelihood of confusion can be so subjective. Happy Thanksgiving!
COLOR BAR is certainly not generic for hair-related services. I don't think it is even merely descriptive. In any case, the Examining Attorney can't ignore two issued registrations, or declare the registered marks invalid.
I guessed the dog bed, too!
Juice Generation v. GS Enterprises soon to be standard get-out-of-jail defense to any descriptive prior mark 2(d) argument. Congrats to the fed circuit!
Wine v. vodka was an obvious one...been that way for a while.
Post a Comment
<< Home