Which of These Three 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In re Total Tax Experience, LLC, Serial No. 90502524 (November 6, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Karen S. Kuhlke). [Section 2(d) refusal of THE TAX COP for "a series of printed books, printed articles, printed handouts and printed worksheets in the field of tax planning, tax strategy, and tax relief; Printed workbooks directed to tax planning, tax strategy, and tax relief; Printed worksheets in the field of tax planning, tax strategy, and tax relief [TAX disclaimed]," in view of the registered mark COPS & Design (shown below) for "printed sheets or booklets."]
In re Pump Haircare Pty Ltd, Serial No. 79311831 (November 2, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Marc A. Bergsman) [Section 2(d) refusal of PUMP HAIRCARE, for various non-medicated hair care products and for related retail services [HAIRCARE disclaimed], in view of the registered mark PUMP POWDER for "hair care preparations; hair styling preparations" [POWDER disclaimed].]
In re Cookies and Dreams A Series LLC, Serial No. 90500102 (November 1, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Marc A. Thurmon) [Section 2(d) refusal to register COOKIES & DREAMS for "cookies" [COOKIES disclaimed], in view of the registered mark COOKIES N’ DREAMS for “coffee; coffee beans; coffee pods; coffee pods, filled; ground coffee beans; roasted coffee beans."]
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog comment: How did you do?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2023.
posted by John L. Welch @ 11/08/2023
2 comments
2 Comments:
THE TAX COP refusal was reversed. The other two were affirmed.
It's nice to see a somewhat nuanced analysis of the differences between COPS and THE TAX COP when they could have used the more mechanical approach whereby one discounts THE (because it's usually ignored) and TAX (because it is disclaimed) and hold that the marks are thus similar enough (COPS vs. COP) given the identity of the goods. Wish it was citable just because it stands out as a smart ex parte decision.
Post a Comment
<< Home