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.
Atomic Austria GmbH and Amer Sports Winter & Outdoor Company v. Zave US, Opposition No. 91266670 (January 27, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Elizabeth A. Dunn). [Section 2(d) opposition to registration of the design mark shown below right for, inter alia, t-shirts, tee-shirts, and tee shirts, in view of the registered mark shown below left for, inter alia, t-shirts.].
Ilsa, LLC v. Molly Ray Fragrance, Opposition No. 91267802 (January 25, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Peter W. Cataldo). [Section 2(d) opposition to registration of PERFUME WITH A PURPOSE for fragrances and perfumery, in view of the common law mark PERFUME WITH A PURPOSE for fragrances and perfumery.]
Honest Tea, Inc. v. La Brisa Ice Cream Company, Opposition No. 91252873 (January 19, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Thomas W. Wellington) [Section 2(d) opposition to HONEST POP for "frozen confections, namely, frozen fruit confections and frozen plant based confections, all excluding frozen yogurt" [POP disclaimed] in view of the common law mark HONEST & Design for freezable fruit juice slushy goods.]
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog comment: How did you do? You surely got the second one right!
posted by John L. Welch @ 2/08/2023
5 comments
5 Comments:
All three oppositions were sustained
I'm a bit surprised on the first one just by looking at the logos. The second one is a no brainer and I would have likely sustained the 3rd one too!
@Stacey - I too am a bit surprised on the first one!
The first one??!! I would have had that wrong.
The pro se defense gives away the outcome in the first one.
Post a Comment
<< Home