TTABlog Test: Three Ex Parte Decisions - How Did They Come Out?

Here are three ex parte appeals decided yesterday by the Board: a Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion case, a Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusal, and a Section 2(e)(4) surname ruling. How do you think they came out? [Answers in first comment].

In re MassDrop, Inc., Serial No. 87869354 (May 28, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Michael B. Adlin). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark DROP for various clothing items "excluding gloves and not specifically for skiing or snowboarding," in view of the identical mark registered for "glovesfor use in skiing and snowboarding." Applicant argues that ski and snowboard glove consumers are "sophisticated" and "very particular" about their purchases.].

In re InfoSecurity Infrastructure, Inc., Serial No. 88013497 (May 28, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Thomas W. Wellington). [Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusal of DUTIES AUDIT for "business risk assessment services." Applicant stated that" the word 'duties' pertains to the question: ‘Have the customer organization’s directors and officers fulfilled their legal duties regarding compliance with all information security and privacy related laws and regulations?'"].

[Imagine a picture of an audit]
In re Delta Faucet Company, Serial No. 88072028 (May 28, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Jonathan Hudis). [Section 2(e)(4) surname refusal of LOWRY for "plumbing products, namely, faucets." The examining attorney found 35,616 Lexis/Nexis hits. Applicant pointed to Urban Dictionary definitions of the terms LAWRY, LAWRY’S and LAWRIES as "a person or persons who are unpleasant, jealous or simply hate others"].

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog note: How did you do? See any WYHA?s here?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2020.