TTABlog Test: TTAB Rules in Three Section 2(d) Oppositions Argued in August 2023
The Board recently decided three Section 2(d) oppositions in which it held oral arguments in August 2023. How do you think they came out? Answers in first comment.
K2 Sports, LLC v. Joyride Snowboards LLC, Opposition No. 91263939 (September 28, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Frances S. Wolfson). [Opposition to registration of JOYRIDE SNOWBOARDS for "snowboards" [SNOWBOARDS disclaimed] on the ground of likelihood of confusion with the registered mark RIDE for snowboards and accessories.]
Graco Minnesota Inc. v. Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools Co., Ltd., Opposition No. 91247343 (September 6, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge George C. Pologeorgis) [Opposition to registration of AEROPRO for "Coffee grinders, other than hand-operated; Compressed air machines; Electric hand-held drills; Electric nail extractors; Fertilizer distributing machines, other than hand-operated implements; Glue guns, electric; Lifting jacks other than hand-operated; Machine tools for forming, riveting, swaging, and flaring of metal and plastics; Mufflers for motors and engines; Painting machines; Pumps for machines; Rivet guns; Vacuum pumps," in view of the registered mark AIRPRO for paint spray guns, air spray guns, manual air spray guns, and automatic air spray guns.]
Four Seasons Brands, LLC v. Kirstie L. Crivello, Opposition No. 91233211 (October 20, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Karen S. Kuhlke) [Opposition to registration of FOUR SEASONS OUTDOOR LIVING CO. & design for "Construction consultation," on the ground of likelihood of confusion with the mark FOUR SEASONS and formatives thereof for patio covers, liferooms, pergolas, pool enclosures, carports, screens, awnings, windows, decking, patio rooms, greenhouses and solariums and for the sale, manufacture, design, construction (including construction related services such as provision of and/or assistance with engineering drawings, engineering consultation and technical support), and installation thereof.]
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog comment: How did you do?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2023.
posted by John L. Welch @ 10/24/2023
3 comments
3 Comments:
The first opposition was dismissed: "the dissimilarities of the marks, in light of the conceptual weakness of Opposer’s mark, the earlier 16-year period of co-existence of the marks JOYRIDE and RIDE for snowboards, and the degree of purchaser care involved, support a conclusion that confusion is unlikely despite the in-part identical and otherwise related nature of the goods, and the overlapping trade channels and classes of consumers.
The second opposition was sustained: "Opposer’s mark is entitled to the normal scope of protection accorded an inherently distinctive mark, (2) the marks at issue are similar, (3) Opposer’s goods listed in its pleaded registration are legally identical in-part to Applicant’s identified goods, (4) that the goods would move in the same or overlapping trade channels, and (5) the parties’ respective goods are offered to the same or overlapping classes of purchasers."
The third opposition was sustained: "the parties’ services, customers, and channels of trade are identical or legally identical, that Opposer’s mark FOUR SEASONS is commercially strong affording it a broad scope of protection, and the marks are similar."
The TTAB has an unfortunate fondness for the locution "the normal scope of protection accorded an inherently distinctive mark," but it strikes me as deliberately vague. An inherently-distinctive mark may be weak, strong, or somewhere in between.
I finally got one right! I also would have afforded a narrow scope of protection to "RIDE" marks for snowboards.
Post a Comment
<< Home