TTAB Test: In which of these Three Cases Did the Board Find No Likelihood of Confusion?

Supposedly one can predict the outcome of a Section 2(d) case 95 percent of the time just by looking at the marks and the goods. In one of these three recent decisions - two oppositions and one ex parte appeal - the Board found no likelihood of confusion. Let's see how you do in figuring out which one it was. [Answer will be found in first comment].

In re Liquivita, LLC, Serial No. 86265014 (May 20, 2016) [not precedential]. Section 2(d) refusal of LIQUIVITA LOUNGE & Design (shown below) for various medical services and therapies [LOUNGE disclaimed], in view of the mark LIQUI-VITE for "multivitamin dietary food supplement."

Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. v. FUB LLC, Opposition No. 91208221 (May 20, 2016) [not precedential]. Section 2(d) refusal to register F&A for "baseball caps; shorts; t-shirts," in view of various marks comprising or containing the term A&F for clothing items.

Shoichi Matsumoto v. David Beaulieu, Opposition No. 91217806 (May 16, 2016) [not precedential]. Section 2(d) opposition to registration of NO RECIPE REQUIRED in standard character form, for "providing an online website that provides cooking and culinary information," in view of the registered mark NO RECIPES for"on-line journals, namely, blogs featuring recipes, cooking and travel information."

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog comment: How did you do?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2016.