TTAB Test: Which of These Four Section 2(d) Refusals Was Reversed?
It has been said that 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 four recent Section 2(d) appeals, one of which resulted in reversal. Which one? [Answer will be found in first comment].
In re Amogreentech Co., Ltd., Serial No. 88618200 (March 14, 2017) [not precedential]. [Section 2(d) refusal of SNOWMASK for "cosmetics; mask pack for cosmetic purposes," in view of the registered mark ICE MASK for "Facial beauty masks; facial cleansers; facial emulsions; facial lotion; facial masks" [MASK disclaimed]].
In re Rescue One Air, Serial No. 87000714 (March 16, 2017) [not precedential]. [Section 2(d) refusal of RESCUE ONE AIR, in standard character and design form (below), for "HVAC contractor services; Installation, maintenance and repair of HVAC units and systems," in view of the registered mark AIR RESCUE in standard character and design form (second below), for "air conditioning contractor services"].
In re Trilliant Food and Nutrition, LLC., Serial No. 87159762 (March 23, 2017) [not precedential]. [Section 2(d) refusal of JAKE'S for "coffee sold in individual cartridges for use in single serve coffee brewers" [COFFEE disclaimed], in view of the registered mark shown below, for various baked goods and confectionary products [DESSERTS disclaimed]].
In re Century Stone Incorporated trading as Century Quartz Stone, Serial No. 86687997 (March 24, 2017) [not precedential]. [Section 2(d) refusal of CENTURY QUARTZ STONE and CQ Design for "Epoxy resin-based slabs manufactured using crushed recycled rock and glass for building purposes, sold to fabricators of building products; Quartz, sold to fabricators of building products" in view of the registered mark CQ & Design for "quartz surface slabs, countertops and tiles; building materials, namely, quartz material used in the manufacture of countertops, bathroom vanities, bar tops, and tub surrounds; quartz floor tiles"].
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog comment: How did you do?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2017.
posted by John L. Welch @ 3/27/2017
3 comments
3 Comments:
The fourth case (CQ) was reversed.
Considering how common marks comprised of first names are in the food (and particularly restaurant) industry, pretty surprised the third one didn't get reversed, too.
The fourth one felt like it could have gone either way. I was surprised at the third, however.
Looking at the actual decision, though, it looks like it was more of a procedural than substantive issue: The appellant relied exclusively on registrations to show that "Jake" was weak, and submitted zero evidence of actual third-party use of that name in the context of food.
Post a Comment
<< Home