TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Section 2(d) Oppositions Turn Out?
A TTAB judge once told me that you can predict the outcome of a Section 2(d) case 95% of the time by just looking at the goods/services and the marks. Maybe he or she was referring to ex parte cases only, but let's see how you do with the three oppositions summarized below. Answer(s) in the first comment.
American Can! Cars for Kids v. Charitable Adult Rides & Services, Inc., Opposition No. 91255836 (September 29, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge George C. Pologeorgis). [Section 2(d) opposition to registration of CARS for "charitable fundraising" in view of the common law mark CARS FOR KIDS for charitable fundraising by means of collecting and reselling used automobiles and watercraft.]
Giorgio Armani S.p.A. v. SEH International, Ltd., Opposition No. 91253443 (September 29, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Robert H. Coggins). [Section 2(d) opposition to registration of AXIO (Stylized) for "Sports equipment, namely, soccer uniforms, namely, shirts and shorts; jackets, pants and sweatshirts, belts for clothing, and socks," in view of the registered mark AX for various clothing items, including jackets, shirts, sweatpants, shorts, sweatshirts, jerseys, neckwear, stockings, and tracksuits.]
Threshold Enterprises Ltd. v. Sevag Dani Tufenkjian, Opposition No. 91266595 (September 23, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Angela Lykos). [Section 2(d) opposition to registration of TRUUVEGAN for "Dietary supplements; Dietary and nutritional supplements; Nutritional supplements; Vitamin supplements; Vitamin and mineral supplements; all the foregoing made from vegan ingredients," in view of the registered mark VEGAN TRUE for "Vegan dietary supplements; vegan herbal supplements; vegan nutritional supplements; vegan food supplements; vegan vitamins" ["VEGAN" disclaimed]].
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog comment: How did you do?
posted by John L. Welch @ 10/05/2022
3 comments
3 Comments:
The first two oppositions were dismissed. The third was sustained.
Interesting. I didn’t think any of them were confusingly similar!
I more decisions I see, the more I wonder. These three decisions "seem" better than those you reported on September 29th and 30th. The Board seems to be "swayed" by the actual facts and arguments in each case, which are never "equal" to prior cases. Then you have a case like FyreTV (Wreal LLC v. Amazon). Almost every student in my class at Pitt Law (over multiple years) looked at me like I needed cognitive assistance from our collegues at Pitt Med when I would suggest that Wreal had a decent case. Then in June 2022 the 11th Circuit ruled I might just have it right. See case 19-13285. Context in close cases makes all the difference.
Post a Comment
<< Home