TTABlog Test: Which of These Three Section 2(d) Refusals Was/Were Reversed?
The Board has affirmed 41 of the first 44 Section 2(d) refusals that it reviewed this year. That's an affirmance rate of 93%. Here are three more decision. At least one was a reversal. How do you think these three cases came out? [Results in first comment].
In re Bulletproof Property Management, LLC, Serial No. 90625153 (March 31, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Jyll Taylor) [Section 2(d) refusal of VECTOR for "Firearms; Component parts for guns" in view of the identical mark registered for "knives; knives, namely, pocket knives, sport knives, utility knives, tactical knives, and survival knives."]
In re Bulletproof Property Management, LLC, Serial No. 90545574 (March 31, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Jyll Taylor). [Section 2(d) refusal of SERGEANT for "Ammunition; Firearms; Holsters; Component parts for guns," in view of the identical mark registered for "All purpose sporting bags, backpacks [and] duffel bags, all for use in the fields of hunting, fishing, camping and outdoor gear."]
In re Disciplina Excellentiae, LLC, Serial Nos. 90426395 and 90426435 (March 31, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cheryl S. Goodman) [Section 2(d) refusals of the marks HIPE FITE and HIPE FITNESS for health club services and physical fitness training [FIT and FITNESS disclaimed] in view of the registered marks HIP in standard character form for "Arranging and conducting youth sports programs in the field of football; Educational services, namely, providing classes, seminars, and workshops in the fields of sports; Entertainment in the nature of football games," and HIP (stylized) for "Education services, namely, training high school students to provide health education and health information resources to their peers, and providing curricula and course materials in connection therewith."]
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog comment: How did you do? See any WYHA?s
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2023.
posted by John L. Welch @ 4/05/2023
7 comments
7 Comments:
The first two were affirmed, the third reversed
Finally, some sanity.
It is incomprehensible that the examining attorney and by implication the Managing Attorney, were willing to try to convince the Board that hipe could be pronounced as hip. Something's gotta give. A WYHIAFR (the obvious meaning)
Got it! Agree with Anonymous.
I agree with Anonymous at 9:39am. The examining attorney actually argued in her brief that HIPE and HIP "are essentially phonetic equivalents." Bad-faith arguments from examining attorneys seem to be a growing trend.
I got it right.
The TTAB, similar to a broken clock, is correct at least two times a day (actually, more like 5 times out of 100).
Post a Comment
<< Home