Friday, June 02, 2017

TTAB Test: Which of These Three Section 2(d) Refusals Was Reversed?

Here are three recent Section 2(d) appeals, one of which resulted in a reversal.  Which one? [Answer will be found in first comment].

In re Don Sebastiani & Sons International Wine Negotiants Restoque Int’l LLC, Serial No.  86692212 (May 30, 2017) [not precedential]. [Section 2(d) refusal of CONTIGO for spirits, in view of the registered mark SOLO CONTIGO for wine].

In re Dennis Binkley, Serial No. 86429294 (May 30, 2017) [not precedential]. [Section 2(d) refusal BUNGEE BLAST for "Foam flying toy; Hand-powered non-mechanical flying toy" [BUNGEE disclaimed] in view of the registered mark BUNGEE GLIDERZ  for “Toy airplanes; Toy gliders; Toy sling planes" [GLIDERZ disclaimed]. 

In re Kim-C1, LLC, Serial No. 86757650 (May 31, 2017) [not precedential]. [Section 2(d) refusal of SPLENDOR for "Plant growth regulators for agricultural use" in view of the registered mark SPLENDORGRO for "mulch; peat moss; colored wood chips for use as ground cover; and plant seeds," and for "compost; potting soil; humus; plant food"].

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog comment: How did you do?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2016.


At 7:54 AM, Blogger John L. Welch said...

The BUNGEE BLAST refusal was reversed.

At 11:10 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Finally! I got it correct. I was thinking that BUNGEE was generic, and as it was the commonality between the marks, the differences in BLAST and GLIDERS, even if the goods were identical, was sufficient differentiation. I haven't read the opinion, so I don't know if that was the reasoning used by the Board or not.


Post a Comment

<< Home