TTAB Test: How Did These Three Section 2(d) Appeals Turn Out?

I think the TTAB Tests this week have been too dang easy. Here are three recent Board decisions in Section 2(d) appeals. I'm not giving any hints this time, so you're on your own. How do you think these appeals turned out? [Answer in first comment].

In re ERB Industries, Inc., Serial No. 86826889 (September 25, 2018) [not precedential] [Section 2(d) refusal of COOLERZ for "Bandanas, hat liners, neck bands and headbands," on the ground of likelihood of confusion with the registered mark COOLER for various clothing items, including hats, caps, and berets]. [Good discussion of third-party registration evidence]. [The Board's decision was affirmed by the CAFC under Rule 36 FRAP].


In re Elliott, Serial No. 86717843 (September 26, 2018) [not precedential]. [Section 2(d) refusal of ZEKE for clothing and athletic apparel in view of two registered marks: ZEKE'S SMOKEHOUSE for "hats, caps, blouses, sweat shirts," and ZEKE'S COFFEE in standard and design form [COFFEE DISCLAIMED) for athletic apparel]. [Applicant claimed that he is a well-known NFL player].

In re River Pools and Spas, Inc., Serial No. 87241299 (September 26, 2018) [not precedential]. [Section 2(d) refusal of RHINO-ROC for "installation of inground swimming pools," in view of the registered mark RHINO CONTRACTING for "contractor services in the field o f underground utilities, paving, masonry, hard-scape, and landscape" [CONTRACTING disclaimed]]. [Another discussion of third-party registration and use].

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog comment: See any WYHAs here?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2018.