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In re Don Sebastiani & Sons International Wine Negotiants Restoque Int’l LLC, Serial No. 86692212 (May 30, 2017) [not precedential].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In re Dennis Binkley, Serial No. 86429294 (May 30, 2017) [not precedential].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In re Kim-C1, LLC, Serial No. 86757650 (May 31, 2017) [not precedential].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.
posted by John L. Welch @ 6/02/2017
2 comments
2 Comments:
The BUNGEE BLAST refusal was reversed.
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