TTABlog Test: Which of These Section 2(d) Refusals Was/Were Reversed?
Here are three recent appeals from Section 2(d) refusals. At least one of the refusals was reversed. How do you think these came out? Answers will be found in the first comment.
In re Neptune Eyewear Pty. Ltd., Serial No. 90544913 (August 22, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christopher C. Larkin). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark AVANTI for "Frames for spectacles and sunglasses, excluding frames for protective eyeglasses," in view of the registered mark AVANTÉ for "protective eyeglasses."]
In re Riverside Natural Foods Pet Products Inc., Serial No. 90732664 (August 23, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Wendy B. Cohen) [Section 2(d) refusal of MADE BETTER (Stylized) for "Pet Food, edible pet treats," in view of the registered mark PET DINE MADE BETTER & Design for "Pet treats being dietary pet supplements; dietary supplements for pets."]
In re DRiV Automotive, Inc., Serial No. 87720124 (August 24, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cheryl S. Goodman) [Section 2(d) refusal of X-LANDER for "Aftermarket shock absorbers for vehicles," in view of the registered mark LANDER for, inter alia, engines, structural parts for land vehicles, wheels for vehicles, alloy wheels, wheel covers, arm rests for vehicle seats, fitted car seat covers, covers for vehicle steering wheels, and fitted covers for vehicles.]
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog comment: How did you do?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2023.
posted by John L. Welch @ 8/28/2023
8 comments
8 Comments:
The X-LANDER refusal was reversed, the other two were affirmed.
Wow, I thought it was the MADE BETTER one for sure.
No way to ever know the answers. Just a random guess each time.
Got it!
The X-LANDER case should never have gotten to a appeal. It's so frustrating that the evidentiary burden for relatedness seems to have been treated much too mater-of-fact by examining attorneys lately. I routinely get three websites "showing the services of both registrant and applicant" and I'm forced to try to figure out just WHERE it does that. They should be required to highlight each party's services in different colors..back to basics. This is mainly a problem with computer related services and other highly technical services where they seem to simply do a an internet word search and assume the results must speak for themselves.
@Eddie - that is because we are not given all of the facts each time unless we take the time to read each actual case. I thought it could be the LANDER case if LANDER was shown to be common.
As I have said many times, a TTAB judge once told me that one can predict the outcome of a Section 2(d) case 95% of the time just by looking at the marks and the goods/services. Undoubtedly an important factor is the strength of the cited mark, which is not necessarily evident by looking at the mark in isolation.
I agree with the previous comment that the MADE BETTER refusal was the more likely reversal.
Post a Comment
<< Home