TTAB Posts February 2021 (Video) Hearing Schedule
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Tee-Tee-Ā-Bee) has scheduled seven (7) oral hearings for the month of February 2021. The hearings will be held via video. Briefs and other papers for each case may be found at TTABVUE via the links provided.
February 2, 2021 - 12 PM: In re Baja Trademarks LLC, Serial No. 87100812 [Section 2(d) refusal of SCORE (in standard character form) for "Restaurant and bar services," in view of the registered marks SCORES, SCORES NEW YORK, and SCORES SHOWROOM, U.S. for bar and restaurant services.]
February 3, 2021 - 2 PM: In re MN Apparel LLC, Serial No. 87876633 [Refusal to register MOSTLY MN ONE WITH EVERYTHING for "Baseball caps; Beanies; Hats; Hooded sweatshirts; Infant and toddler one
piece clothing; Shirts; Tank tops; Short-sleeved or long-sleeved t-shirts; Sweat shirts; T-shirts" on the ground that the mark as depicted on the specimens of use is not a substantially exact representation of the proposed mark shown on the application drawing.]
February 9, 2021 - 11 AM: Match Group LLC v. Pooria Shahin, Opposition No. 91241077 [Opposition to registration of beender (standard character form) for "Computer application software for mobile phones, namely, software for social introduction and dating," on the grounds likelihood of confusion with, and likely dilution of, the registered mark TINDER for mobile application software.]
February 10, 2021 - 1 PM: Combe Incorporated v. Marke Enterprises, LLC, Oppositions Nos. 91214779 and 91215509 [Section 2(d) oppositions to registration of VAGISERT, in standard character and stylized form, for "Vaginal antifungal preparations," in view of the registered marks VAGISIL and VAGISTAT for various feminine products.]
February 23, 2021 - 11 AM: Monster Energy Company v. Maple Leaf Kudo, Inc. Sports & Entertainment Partnership and Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment Ltd., Oppositions Nos. 91222422, 91222445, 91226092, and 91228458 [Oppositions to registration of the four marks shown first below, for allegedly identical goods and services as those of Opposer, on the grounds of likelihood of confusion with, and likely dilution of, Opposer's registered "claw icon," shown second below.
February 24, 2021 - 11 AM: In re The Pennsylvania State University, Serial Nos. 88311154 and 88311234 [Section 2(e)(2) geographical descriptiveness refusal of PENN STATE HEALTH in standard character form, and requirement of disclaimer of that same phrase in the word+design mark shown below, for various educational, research, and health care services].
February 25, 2021 - 1 PM: Lisbeth W. Roy, DO, PA v. Charles E. Runels, Jr., Cancellation No. 92065804 [Petition for cancellation of registrations for the marks VAMPIRE FACELIFT, VAMPIRE BREASTLIFT, VAMPIRE NIPPLELIFT, VAMPIRE M SHOT, VAMPIRE O SHOT, VAMPIRE FACIAL, PRIAPUS SHOT, O-SHOT, and ORGASM SHOT for various medical procedures, on the grounds of fraud, genericness, functionality, and mere descriptiveness.]
Read comments and post your comment here.
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2021.
posted by John L. Welch @ 1/29/2021
2 comments
2 Comments:
Penn State’s appeal is odd. Of course PENNSTATE is primarily geographically descriptive within the meaning of Section 2(e)(2). It is equally obvious that Penn State could establish acquired distinctiveness with respect to PENNSTATE, but for some odd reason it has not claimed 2(f) and therefore the refusal/requirement should be affirmed. See In re Industrie Pirelli Societa per Azioni, 9 U.S.P.Q.2d 1564, 1565 (T.T.A.B. 1988) (“The fame of applicant’s mark and the existence of prior registrations would certainly be relevant factors in establishing distinctiveness under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act. Applicant has not claimed the benefits of Section 2(f) and, without a formal claim of distinctiveness under Section 2(f), the evidence of fame and prior registration cannot serve as the basis for allowing registration of applicant’s mark.”).
I want none of those procedures in that last one! (well, one doesn't sound too bad)
Post a Comment
<< Home