Pages

Thursday, August 03, 2017

TTAB Test: Which of these Two Section 2(d) Refusals Was Reversed?

Here are two Section 2(d) appeals decided two days ago. One of the refusals was reversed. Applying your jurisprudential skills and/or well-honed instincts, how do you think these came out? [Answer in first comment].



In re Mendocino Farms, LLC, Serial No. 86731456 (August 1, 2017) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Karen Kuhlke). [Section 2(d) refusal of EAT HAPPY for restaurant and catering services, in view of the mark shown below, for restaurant services].


In re TOELL Co., Ltd., Serial No. 86888544 (August 1, 2017) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Angela Lykos). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark PURE HAWAIIAN WATER & Design (below left) for "drinking water [PURE HAWAIIAN WATER disclaimed], in view of the registered marks HAWAII WATER & Design (below right) for "purified drinking water" [HAWAII WATER disclaimed] and PURE HAWAIIAN (Supplemental Register), in standard character form, for bottled water].

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog comment: How did you do?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2017.

8 comments:

  1. The second one was reversed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous8:03 AM

    FYI, the standard character registered mark PURE HAWAIIAN for bottled drinking water and bottled water was also cited against the PURE HAWAIIAN WATER mark.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Guessed right, for a change.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Glenn, even a blind squirrel ....

    ReplyDelete
  5. My point exactly, John!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks for making me feel better, Pam. I thought I was the only one that sucked at this!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Darlene Klinksieck9:20 AM

    For once, I guessed correctly. That said, it was in fact a "guess"!

    ReplyDelete