TTABlog Test: How Did These Four Section 2(d) Appeals Turn Out?
In January 2022, the Board decided twenty-two (22) appeals from Section 2(d) refusals. It affirmed them all. Here are the first four Section 2(d) decisions of this month. Has the streak been broken? How do you think they turned out? [Answers in first comment].
In re Charlie’s Chalk Dust, LLC, Serial No. 88417905 (February 1, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Elizabeth A. Dunn). [Section 2(d) refusal of PACHAMAMA for, inter alia, "herbal tinctures" and "essential oils; non-medicated topical skin care preparations" all "containing naturally occurring trace amounts of CBD derived from hemp and less than .3% THC," in view of the registered mark PACHAMAMA PEOPLE for “Dietary and nutritional supplements made of herbs; Herbal tinctures for use as nutritional supplements; Herbal tinctures for use in healing.”]
In re GMC Machine Tools Corp., Serial No. 88773861 (February 1, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Robert H. Coggins). [Section 2(d) refusal of GMC for "metalworking machines, milling machines, lathes, fabrication shearing machines, and replacement parts for all of the aforementioned goods," in view of the registered marks GMC CORE and GMC GLOBAL MACHINERY COMPANY (Stylized), for various machine and power tools, including saws, electric drills, and electric screwdrivers [GLOBAL MACHINERY COMPANY disclaimed.]
In re Foxmind Canada Enterprises Ltd., Serial No. 88780851 (February 2, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Michael B. Adlin) [not precedential]. [Section 2(d) refusal of KABAMMM! for "card games; parlor games" on the ground of likely confusion with the registered mark KABAM for “ entertainment services, namely, providing on line computer games."]
In re Center For Excellence In Higher Education, Inc., Serial No. 88893908 (February 2, 2022) (Opinion by Judge Martha B. Allard) [not precedential]. [Section 2(d) refusal of ONLINE BUT NEVER ALONE. for "educational services, namely, providing online learning instruction at the college and post-secondary educational levels," in view of the registered mark ONLINE. BUT NOT ALONE. for "Educational services, namely, providing accredited and certified courses of instruction at the post-secondary and college level and distributing course materials in connection therewith."]
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog comment: How did you do? See any non-WYHAs?
posted by John L. Welch @ 2/04/2022
6 comments
6 Comments:
All four were affirmed
These are ALL WYHAs (not)
I feel sorry for the applicants. Do their attorneys advise them that 96% of refusals are AFFIRMED by the Board?
There is WYHA, but some of these cross over into WYHPTONOI - Would you have put them on notice of infringement? They're fighting for registration when in reality they should be thrilled to not receive a cease and desist.
That they would risk a high probability of non-registration in the first place should have come as no surprise. If their applications were filed by attorneys, those attorneys should have put them on high alert for likely registration problems and infringement allegations. Picking a brand name that will be registered and not risk infringement/opposition is a difficult endeavor.
These four were straightforward, but charlie's Chalk Dust was noted as precendent for some reason.
I think the words "This opinion is not a" somehow were deleted at the top of the pdf.
Post a Comment
<< Home