TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Recent 2(d) Appeals Turn Out?
The rate of affirmance for Section 2(d) refusals is running at 85% or so this year. That's about 5% lower than usual. Here are three recent TTAB decisions. How do you think they came out?
In re Pour Moi Limited, Serial No. 79318691 (September 7, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Jennifer L. Elgin). [Section 2(d) refusal of POUR MOI for various clothing items in view of the identical mark registered for "Non-medicated skin care preparations and cosmetics for the face and body."]
In re Chick-A-Boom, LLC, Serial No. 90667527 (September 13, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Michael B. Adlin) [Section 2(d) refusal of CHICK-A-BOOM, for restaurant services, in view of the registered marks CHK-A BOOM for "providing of food and drink via online ordering, takeout services, and delivery services" and CHICKABOOM for "processed meat, namely, chicken."]
In re Destiladora del Valle de Tequila SA de CV, Serial No. 90269534 (September 15, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Robert H. Coggins) [Section 2(d) refusal to register DESPERADOS (in standard characters) for “Distilled agave liquor; Distilled blue agave liquor," in view of the registered marks shown below, for "beers."]
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog comment: How did you do?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2023.
posted by John L. Welch @ 9/18/2023
4 comments
4 Comments:
All refusals were affirmed.
No surprises there!
The first one is silly. Why even require registrations to have silly things like classes and G&S descriptions?
I had hopes for a reversal in the first one, but as usual, my hopes were crushed by the apparent relatedness of skin care products and anything else.
Post a Comment
<< Home