TTAB Test: Which of These Three Section 2(d) Refusals Was Reversed?
It has been said that one can predict the outcome of a Section 2(d) appeal 95% of the time just by looking at the marks and the goods or services. Presented for your consideration are three recent TTAB decisions in Section 2(d) appeals. One was reversed. Which one? [Answer in first comment].
In re Hibernia Distillers Limited, Serial No. 86523391 (October 1, 2018) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cindy B. Greenbaum). [Section 2(d) refusal to register the mark shown immediately below, for "Whiskey; Irish whiskey; single malt whiskey; bourbon whiskey; whiskey cocktails," in view of the registered marks
In re Kiona Vineyards, LLC, Serial No. 87356605 (November 6, 2018) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Robert H. Coggins). [Section 2(d) refusal of KIONA VINEYARDS (Stylized) for "wines" [VINEYARD disclaimed], in view of the registered mark KIANA for "wine"].
In re PEM Management, Inc., Serial No. 86957812 (November 14, 2018) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Marc A. Bergsman). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark PENN AUTO in the design form shown below, for "Product engineering services for others, namely, design engineering of hardware components and fasteners for the automotive industry," in view of the registered mark PENN UNITED for "Design and testing for new product development; Design and testing of new products for others; Designing of machines, apparatus, instruments or systems composed of such machines, apparatus and instruments; Product development; Product development for others; Product research & development; Product safety testing; Research and development for new products for others"].
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog comment: How did you do?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2018.
posted by John L. Welch @ 11/19/2018
5 comments
5 Comments:
The HYDE refusal was reversed
HYDE reversed. Kiana reversed. Penn sustained.
I guessed Kiana was reversed.
Oh, you wascally wabbit! You neglected to mention that the HYDE(design)opposition was suspended until HYDE was cancelled for failure to file a section 8/section 9 declaration. That left the HYDE design facing only the HYDE PARK and JAMES C. HYDE mark refusals.
Hmm...I think the HYDE decision is a closer call than the Board seems to think especially since the applicant's mark emphasizes the term HYDE while the other terms in the mark are somewhat descriptive (No. 1 and President's Cask). And what about the surname issue, not even raised?
Post a Comment
<< Home