TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Recent Section 2(d) Appeals Turn Out?
So far this year, the Board has affirmed 135 of the 144 Section 2(d) refusals on appeal (just about 94%). Here are three decisions that came down late last week. How do you think they came out? [Results in first comment].
In re Zena E. M. Conway, Serial Nos. 88801050 (September 15, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Angela Lykos) [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark Y/NG GR8TNESS (“GREATNESS” disclaimed) in view of the registered marks YNG and YNG+, all for educational services in the fields of business and personal development.]
In re vivawave Co., Ltd., Serial No. 88848727 (September 15, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Michael B. Adlin). [Section 2(d) refusal of MOOD NARRATIVE for various cosmetics, in view of the registered mark NARRATIVE COSMETICS ("COSMETICS" disclaimed) for "theatrical make up.”]
In re GFactor Enterprises, LLC, Serial No. 90286664 (September 15, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cheryl S. Goodman) [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark shown below left, for "Hats; Shirts; Hoodies; Knit face masks being headwear," in view of the registered mark shown below right, for "Clothing for men, women and children, namely, shirts, golf shirts, T-shirts, sweatshirts, tank tops, sweaters, jeans, vests, jackets, coats, parkas, underwear, scarves."]
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog comment: How did you do? See any WYHAs?
6 Comments:
All three were affirmed.
I mean the "GFactor" case ... come on. This is a WWAT ("What Was Applicant Thinking?")
How in the world did that third one get to the appeal stage?!
No surprises there...
The GFactor application was filed by a former trademark examining attorney, which makes me wish she was still at the PTO examining all of my applications. (She's also a patent attorney, which just proves what everyone says about patent attorneys and trademarks.)
As a patent attorney and trademark attorney, I resemble that remark.
Post a Comment
<< Home