TTAB Test: Which of These Three Section 2(d) Refusals was Reversed?
Supposedly one can predict the outcome of a Section 2(d) case 95% of the time just by looking at the marks and the goods. Here are three recent Section 2(d) appeals. Which one resulted in a reversal? [Answer will be found in first comment].
In re Werbner, Serial No. 87003366 (December 22, 2016) [not precedential]. [Section 2(d) refusal of PRACTICE SAFE SIGHT for eyewear products, including lenses for computer glasses, framed lenses, and magnification lenses, in view of the registered mark SAFESITE for "opthalmic lenses"].
In re Sharron Gilty, Serial No. 86618610 (December 23, 2016) [not precedential]. [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark shown below, for "bowties," in view of the registered mark BOW CHIC, in standard character form, for “wristlets and wristlet anchors for corsage, namely, bracelets" [BOW disclaimed]].
In re Water Babies Limited, Serial No. 79163879 (December 16, 2016) [not precedential]. [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark shown below for "Printed instructional and teaching material in the field of
swimming instruction," in view of the registered mark WATERBABIES for "swimming instruction"].
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog comment: How did you do?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2016.