Tuesday, May 01, 2018

TTAB Posts May 2018 Hearing Schedule

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) has scheduled four (IV) oral hearings for the month of May 2018. The hearings will be held in the Madison Building, in Alexandria, Virginia. Briefs and other  papers for these cases may be found at TTABVUE via the links provided.



May 1, 2018 - 1 PM: In re Carl Jarecki, Serial No. 87150843 [Section 2(d) refusal of SAVI SS STYLE & Design for "Rubber or silicon wristbands in the nature of a bracelet for holding hair ties therein; Rubber or silicon based finger wraps in the nature of a ring," in view of the registered mark SAVI, for “rings, earrings, necklaces and pendants set with diamonds or other precious stones"].


May 10, 2018 - 10 AM: Dexas International, Ltd. v. Ideavillage Products Corp., Opposition No. 91225850 [Section 2(d) opposition to registration of SNACKEEZ DUO for "Beverageware; Household containers for foods; Thermal insulated containers for food or beverages; Bottles, sold empty for beverages; Cups for beverages; Insulating sleeve holder for beverage cups; Portable beverage and food container holder," in view of the allegedly previously used mark SNACK-DUO for food and drink containers].


May 23, 2018 - 11 AM: In re American Cruise Lines, Inc., Serial No. 87040022 [Section 2(d) refusal of AMERICAN CONSTELLATION for "Cruise ship services; transportation of passengers by ship; arranging and conducting cruises for others" [CONSTELLATION disclaimed], in view of the registered marks CONSTELLATION and CELEBRITY CONSTELLATION, registered by the same owner for "cruise ship services, arranging and conducting cruises for others, and transportation of passengers by ship"].


May 29, 2018 - 2 PM: In re Night Wines, LLC, Serial No. 87084959 [Section 2(d) refusal to register the mark NIGHT for wine, in view of the registered mark NOCHE for wine].


Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog note: Any predictions? See any WYHA?s?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2018.

3 Comments:

At 6:59 AM, Blogger Stephen Anderson said...

American constallation is a loser

 
At 7:41 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

For what it's worth, in AMERICAN CONSTELLATION, AMERICAN is not disclaimed--it's a 2(f) claim for AMERICAN with CONSTELLATION voluntarily disclaimed.

 
At 1:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My prediction for the first case, In re Carl Jarecki, Serial No. 87150843, is that the refusal will be affirmed and SAVI SS STYLE & Design will be rejected. When analyzing the likelihood of confusion under the relevant DuPont factors, the factors seem to weigh in favor of SAVI.

The first factor, similarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression, weighs in favor of SAVI. Although the applicant’s mark contains additional features of the encircled SS and the word STYLE, the dominant part of the mark is SAVI. The applicant disclaimed STYLE because it is a descriptive part of the mark and thus an unregisterable component. Although the disclaimed portion of the mark is still considered when determining likelihood of confusion, the word not disclaimed is generally regarded as the dominant or critical term. The word SAVI is spelled the same in both the marks, it is pronounced the same, and arguably has the same connotation and commercial impression, a misspelling of the word SAVVY meaning to have good judgment. When a consumer sees these two marks, the part of the mark that will stand out to them is SAVI, and therefore, I believe the marks are substantially similar in their entireties.

The second factor, similarity of the goods, could go either way. Although the goods associated with both the marks are jewelry, the SAVI SS STYLE’s products are specifically made of silicon and meant for holding hair ties, and SAVI’s goods are made with diamonds and other precious stones. This leads into the fourth factor, the condition under which and buyers to whom sales are made. Although both of the goods are jewelry, they are very different and sold under different circumstances. SAVI SS STYLE’s goods are most likely going to be inexpensive purchases, while SAVI’s are more careful, sophisticated purchases because they are more expensive. Most people do not go out and buy diamonds on a whim. Consumers are not likely to believe that a company that is selling rubber jewelry is also selling diamonds and precious stones.

The sixth factor, the number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods, may also play a part in this determination. The word SAVI comes up in 89 records on the Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS), however, only 6 of those marks were for jewelry in International Class 14, including SAVI and SAVI SS STYLE. Both SAVI STYLE, which was applied for by the same owner of SAVI SS STYLE, and SAVI SLEEK were abandoned when the trademark examining attorney found them to be confusing similar with SAVI. The other two marks which are registered for jewelry are SAVI SISTERS and the design mark, used in connection with pins/jewelry for breast cancer awareness, as well as other services for breast health, distinguishing this mark from SAVI. The trademark examining attorneys have cited SAVI to block other marks in the past and therefore this factor weighs in favor of SAVI.

Although the consumers of SAVI’s goods may be sophisticated, I believe the relevant DuPont factors weigh in favor of SAVI for a finding of a likelihood of confusion between SAVI and SAVI SS STYLE.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home