TTAB Test: Which One of these Three Section 2(d) Refusals Was Reversed?
I once heard a TTAB judge say that the outcome of nearly all Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion cases can be predicted just by looking at the marks and the identified goods/services, without more. Well, try your potential judicial skills on these three appeals. Which one was reversed. [Answer in first comment].
In re DRHORSEPOWER, INC., Serial No. 77505597 (December 4, 2015) [not precedential]. [Refusal to register the mark shown below, in view of the registered mark HORSEPOWER ENERGY DRINKS, both for energy drinks [ENERGY DRINKS disclaimed in the cited mark].
In re Murad, Inc., Serial No. 86286112 (December 9, 2015) [not precedential]. [Refusal to register INVISIBLUR PERFECTING SHIELD for "Nonmedicated skin care preparations, namely, creams, lotions, gels, toners, cleaners and peels" [PERFECTING SHIELD disclaimed], in view of the registered mark INVISIBLEND for "cosmetic creams; cosmetic creams for skin care; cosmetic preparations for skin care; face creams for cosmetic use"].
In re Americas Health and Wellness Fund LLC, Serial No. 86265852 (December 11, 2015) [not precedential]. [Refusal to register LUBDUB for various goods and services in classes 5, 29, 32, 35, 43, and 44, including nutritionally fortified beverages, fruit-based beverages, retail store service featuring vitamin supplements, and juice bar services, in view of the registered mark DUB for non-alcoholic energy drinks.
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog comment: Are you keeping track of your success rate on these TTAB tests?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2015.