TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Recent TTAB Appeals Come Out?
Here are three decisions issued by the TTAB two days ago, the first a Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusal, the second a Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion refusal, and the third a genericness refusal.How do you think they came out? Answers in first comment.
In re One Plus Two Inc., Serial Nos. 87462239 and 87462270 (November 20, 2019) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Jonathan Hudis). Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusals of RICH & CREAMY and Design and RICH & SPICY for "alcoholic beverages, except beer" [CREAMY and SPICY disclaimed]. Applicant contended that, inter alia, the term RICH in each mark is too vague and nebulous to be merely descriptive of applicant’s goods, and that RICH creates a double entendre connotation, since one meaning of "rich" is "suggestive of wealth."
In re Gerald Green, Application Serial No. 87682609 (November 20, 2019) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Marc A. Bergsman). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark 2GS for "“apparel, namely, shirts; clothing, namely, pants, jackets, sweaters, footwear; hats; accessories, namely, belts, neck wear, wrist wear, ankle wear, facewear," in view of the registered mark 2GS MADEMOISELLE for "clothing, namely, pants, coats, dresses; footwear, headgear, namely, hats; leather or imitation leather clothing, namely, pants, coats, dresses; sports shoes; boots and high shoes for riding; leggings; gaiters; shirts; polo shirts; tee-shirts; vests; jackets; waterproof jackets; belts; gloves; caps; scarves; sashes for wear; ties; socks." Applicant Green argued that "Registrant’s mark offers sophisticated apparel and gear associated with horse-back riding," and that purchasers of those goods will exercise great care in their purchasing decisions.
In re Electronic Payments Inc., Serial No. 87049492 (November 20, 2019) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Karen Kuhlke). Refusal to register ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS for various credit card and gift card processing services provided to merchants, on the grounds of genericness. Applicant asserted that although its services are provided prior to or after the transfer of funds, its identified services are not part of the actual processing of electronic payments.
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog comment: How did you do? See any WYHA's here?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2019.
posted by John L. Welch @ 11/22/2019
6 comments
6 Comments:
First and last definite WYHAS! Not sure I even understand the middle one.
I gotta start drinking more, so I can find a liquor that I would describe as rich & creamy.
I see three big WYHAs here, ranked in reverse order (3>2>1). When will people learn that you can't argue beyond the description of goods in the earlier registration/application? Seriously, it's the same goods in #2, and there's not a thing you can argue to get around that fact. And #3??? Really??? That one is almost as bad as LG's attempt to register HOMEBREW for, wait for it, ... Electric beer brewing machines, malt extracts for brewing beer, etc.
That was easy.
I don't get it. You can't own the words bearings or company which add nothing to the mark anyway, so it's Craft against Craft.
Why does that take 53 pages?
Giving a color trademark status is nuts to begin with. And this actually further dilutes the original trademark owner --so maybe that's the goal.
Post a Comment
<< Home