TTAB Test: Which Two of These Four Section 2(d) Refusals Were 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 four recent Section 2(d) appeals, two of which resulted in reversals. Which ones? [Answer will be found in first comment].
In re Restoque Int’l LLC, Serial No. 86548859 (February 22, 2017) [not precedential]. [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark shown below for various clothing items, in view of the registered mark MADE IN HEAVEN for overlapping clothing items].
In re Illinois Tool Works Inc., Serial No. 86391742 (February 23, 2017) [not precedential]. [Section 2(d) refusal of SERTUN in standard characters for “Nonwoven cleaning towels, not being impregnated with sanitizing preparations, for use in commercial food-service establishments to sanitize surfaces" (Class 21) in view of the registered mark CERTAIN for "Paper towels, bathroom tissue, paper napkins, facial tissue" (Class 16)].
In re the Pet Savers Foundation, Inc., Serial No. 86746413 (February 23, 2017) [not precedential]. [Section 2(d) refusal of NO KILL WORLD for "charitable fund raising" and for "animal adoption services, namely, arranging for rescued animals and dogs and cats from shelters to be placed in homes," in view of the registered mark shown below, for "Charitable services, namely, raising money for animal welfare organizations through promotions and/or incentives"].
In re Worldwise, Inc., Serial No. 87063609 (February 23, 2017) [not precedential]. [Section 2(d) refusal of GLOWFETCH for "pet toys" in view of the registered mark GO FETCH for "Pet toys,excluding throwing sticks for dogs"].
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog comment: How did you do?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2016.