TTABlog Collection of Section 2(c) "Consent to Register" Cases
The recent MANIKCHAND decision is one of only seven Sections 2(c) decision discussed at the TTABlog in the last 14 and one-half years. Set out below is a complete list. Note that five of the seven are precedential.
Section 2(c), in pertinent part, bars registration of a mark that "[c]onsists of or comprises a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular living individual except by his [sic] written consent ...." This provision applies not only to full names but also to shortened names and nicknames, as long as the name identifies a particular living individual.
A consent is required only if the individual bearing the name in the mark will be associated with the mark as used on the goods or services, either because: (1) the person is so well known that the public would reasonably assume a connection between the person and the goods or services; or (2) the individual is publicly connected with the business in which the mark is used.
Precedential No. 10: TTAB Dismisses Rare Section 2(c) Opposition Due to Death of Named Individual
Precedential No. 36: TTAB Gives the Boot to Nike's Inadequate Section 2(a) and 2(c) Claims
Precedential No. 4: TTAB Affirms 2(a) and 2(c) Refusals of "PRINCESS KATE" and "ROYAL KATE" for Clothing
Precedential No. 12: TTAB Reverses Section 2(c) Refusal of FRANKNDODD for Legislative Information Services
TTAB Affirms Section 2(c) Refusal of MARTIN & WEYRICH ROSSO ALLEGRO for Wine
Presidential No. 44: In Rare Section 2(c) Ruling, TTAB Affirms Refusal of "OBAMA BAHAMA PAJAMAS"
In a Citable Section 2(c) Decision, TTAB Partially Cancels "KRAUSE PUBLICATIONS" Registration
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog comment: If someone tried to register the mark TTABlog PAJAMAS, I would certainly oppose under Section 2(c).
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2019.
posted by John L. Welch @ 5/17/2019
3 comments
3 Comments:
My issue with Section 2(c) is that it does not cover dead individuals! I represent a famous but deceased person (or should I say his family and foundation) and it is a huge problem!!! It is further complicated by the varying rights of publicity in different states. I have yet to come up with a universal solution to the problem.
Suppose an applicant is trying to register a mark that consists of a famous individual's name, excluding the last letter of the famous individual's name. What happens then? Is it a violation of 2(c) if the mark and the famous name are still phonetically the same, despite the deletion of the last letter?
Most likely. HEre is a Section 2(a) case that is similar: Frank Sinatra Enterprises, LLC v. Bill Loizon, Opposition No. 91198282 (September 12, 2012) [not precedential]
Post a Comment
<< Home