TTABlog Test: Which of These Three Section 2(d) Refusals Was Reversed?
A certain TTAB Judge once told me that one can predict the outcome of a Section 2(d) appeal 95% of the time by just looking at the marks and the goods or services. Here are three Section 2(d) refusals that were recently considered on appeal. One of the refusals was reversed. Which one? [Answer in first comment].
In re Herve US, LLC, Serial No. 88703522 (September 27, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christen M. English) [Section 2(d) refusal of HERVE for "bakery goods and bakery desserts for wholesale distribution" in view of the registered mark HERVÉ for "restaurant and bar services."]
In re Aquatech Seafood LLC, Serial No. 88524996 (September 22, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Peter W. Cataldo) [Section 2(d) refusal of HAPPY CLAWS LUCKY PAWS for "edible pet treats" in view of the registered mark LUCKY PAW for "dog collars; dog collars and leads; muzzles."]
In re Mannington Mills, Inc., Serial No. 88645881 (September 20, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Linda A. Kuczma) [Section 2(d) refusal of AQUABARRIER for "Underlay for laminate flooring; Flooring underlayments; Non-metal building materials, namely, laminate floor boards, all for residential use" in view of the identical mark registered for "thin membrane for attachment to walls for waterproofing purposes."]
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2021.
posted by John L. Welch @ 9/29/2021
2 comments
2 Comments:
The HERVE refusal was reversed.
The label on the specimen you mentioned is a bit suspicious....
Post a Comment
<< Home