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In re Brand3, Inc., Serial No. 90483463 (August 16, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Angela Lykos). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark shown below [BRANDS disclaimed], for "Brand concept and brand development services for corporate and individual clients; Providing advertising and marketing consulting services to corporate and individual clients; Website traffic optimization for the websites of corporate and individual clients," in view of the mark HOMEPRO MATCH, registered on the Supplemental Register, for "Business and consumer services, namely, providing a website promoting, advertising and marketing, via the website, third party vendors and suppliers, and services and goods of third party vendors and suppliers in the field of contracting and home improvement, namely, home and commercial property construction, maintenance, renovation and repair; providing via the website a searchable online directory to consumers searching third party vendors and suppliers and goods and services of third party vendors and suppliers."]
In re Garan Services Corp., Serial No. 90433386 (August 18, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Jonathan Hudis) [Section 2(d) refusal of STRIPES for "[e]ntertainment services, namely, providing on-line interactive children’s stories," in view of the identical, registered mark STRIPES "[p]ublication of books, of magazines, of journals, of newspapers, of periodicals, of catalogs, of brochures; [p]ublication of electronic newspapers accessible via a global computer network."]
In re Genomma Lab Internacional, S.A.B. de C.V., Serial Nos. 90820054 (August 14, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cindy B. Greenbaum) [Section 2(d) refusal of SHOT B12+ for "Dietary supplements containing vitamin B12; Multivitamin preparations containing vitamin B12" in view of the registered mark SHOT-O-B12, for “dietary supplements, namely, vitamins."].
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog comment: How did you do?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2023.
posted by John L. Welch @ 8/21/2023
5 comments
5 Comments:
The first refusal was reversed, the other two affirmed. In the third case, Judge Bergsman dissented, relying on the Strategic Partners case in view of the applicant's ownership of a registration for SHOT B for "multivitamin preparations containing vitamin B."
Got it. Thanks, John.
I would have affirmed them all. Splitting hairs for no reason. Homepro is a big part of the mark.
How is SHOT B12 not merely descriptive?
> Anonymous said... How is SHOT B12 not merely descriptive?
If the vitamin preparation was delivered intravenously, or as a liquid in a shot glass, I think it would be.
But if it's a gel capsule that acts as a "shot in the arm" or a "shot across the bow", there's at least a case to be made that it's suggestive.
Post a Comment
<< Home