TTABlog Test: Which of These Three Section 2(d) Refusals Was Reversed?
The Board recently decided the appeals from the three Section 2(d) refusals described below. One of the refusals was reversed. Let's see how you do. [Answer in first comment].
In re Michael-David, LLC, Serial No. 88662293 (August 28, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Marc A. Bergsman) [Section 2(d) refusal of NORTHCOAST WINE CO. for "wine" in view of the registered marks NORTH COAST BREWING, in standard character form, and the two word-plus-design marks shown immediately below, for "beer, ale, lager, stout and porter," the three cited registrations being owned by the same entity.]
In re James Bay Distillers, Ltd., Serial No. 88510595 (September 9, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Thomas Shaw) [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark GALLOPING GOOSE for "Distilled spirits" in view of the registered mark GALLOPING GOSE for "beer" [GOSE disclaimed].
In re Tangled Roots Beverage Company LLC, Serial No. 88685983 (September 9, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cindy B. Greenbaum) [Section 2(d) refusal of the word-plus-design mark shown below, for "beer," in view of the registered mark PAINTBOX for "alcoholic beverages except beers."]
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog comment: How did you do? Text Copyright John L. Welch 2021.
posted by John L. Welch @ 9/14/2021
6 comments
6 Comments:
The third one was reversed.
Wow, that surprised me. I will have to read the full opinion.
Got it.
That seemed fairly easy to guess, considering that the first two were a lock to be affirmed.
Nailed it!
The third one is the obvious choice with the design elements and the inclusion of DEVIL'S. Nonetheless, interesting that the Board found the goods to be similar even though the registered mark contained an express exclusion of the very goods sought to be registered.
Post a Comment
<< Home