Friday, May 13, 2016

TTAB Test: Which One of these Four Section 2(d) Refusals Was Reversed?

I once heard a TTAB judge say that the outcome 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. Well, try that approach to these four recent appeals. Which one resulted in a reversal? [Answer in first comment.]


In re Comfortband, LLC, Serial No. 86174491 (May 11, 2016) [not precedential]. [Refusal to register PRECISION SENSABAND for "identification bracelets, not of metal, for hospitals; identification bracelets, not of metal; identification wristbands, not of metal, for hospitals," in view of the registered mark PRECISION (in script font) for "plastic hospital identification bracelets"].


In re 730 Rue Bienville, L.L.C., Serial Nos. 86351471 (May 11, 2016) [not precedential]. [Refusal to register the mark shown below for "bar and restaurant services provided in a hotel" [EST. 1933 and LA LOUISIANE disclaimed], in view of the registered mark 21st AMENDMENT for "restaurant services; brewpub services"].


In re Urban Yoga, LLC, Serial No. 86392231 (May 11, 2016) [not precedential]. [Refusal to register the mark shown below left, for "yoga instruction" [YOGA and "Om symbol" disclaimed], in view of the registered mark shown below right for, inter alia, "yoga instruction" [YOGA FLORIDA disclaimed]].


In re Montfort Services Sdn. Bhd, Serial No. 86167048 (May 9, 2016) [not precedential]. [Refusal to register OSKALILY for Clothing, namely, ... shirts, jackets, coats; knitwear, namely, jumpers, cardigans, and sweaters; pants ... ; formal wear, namely, jackets, coats, and tuxedoes; ... , " in view of the registered mark OSKA for “women's and men's outer clothing, including of leather, namely, jackets, shirts, suits, pants, dresses, blouses, skirts, belts, Bermuda shorts, sweaters, tops, and sashes"].


Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog comment: How did you do?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2016.

3 Comments:

At 6:27 AM, Blogger John L. Welch said...

The URBAN YOGA refusal was reversed.

 
At 8:19 AM, Blogger Brad Salai said...

Even knowing the answer, I can't reconcile these, especially UrbanYoga and 21st Amendment. I guess you should always appeal.

 
At 2:58 PM, Blogger Chris McElwain said...

I assume the URBAN YOGA appellant must have argued that the literal components were so weak that the design elements were sufficient to distinguish, which I guess I can kind of see. Still a surprise given no disclaimer for "urban."

 

Post a Comment

<< Home