TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Recent 2(d) Appeals Turn Out?
People are saying that one can predict the outcome of a Section 2(d) appeal about 95 percent of the time just by looking at the marks and the goods and/or services. Here are the three Section 2(d) appeals recently decided by the TTAB. How do you think these three came out? [Answers in first comment.]
In re Adorama, Inc., Serial No. 97263050 (February 9, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Mark A. Thurmon). [Section 2(d) refusal TURNSTILE AUDIO for “microphones, headphones, in-ear monitors not for medical purposes, audio speakers in the nature of studio monitor speakers, and other related audio equipment used in recording, live sound, post-production, and broadcasting, namely, sound recording apparatus” [AUDIO disclaimed] in view of the registered mark TURNSTYLE for "carrying cases, namely, shoulder bags, and messenger bags, all designed for carrying one or more of cameras, photographic equipment, digital audio players, cell phones, satellite telephones, personal digital assistants, electronic reading devices, tablet computers, and computer accessories.]
In re LIT Hookah LLC, Serial No. 87904603 (February 14, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Thomas W. Wellington). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark shown below for "On-line retail store services featuring handmade all-glass hookahs" in view of the registered mark LIT for "Electronic cigarettes and components and parts, namely, cartomisers, atomisers, and refill cartridges."]
In re CARWIZ International d.o.o., Serial Nos. 79261503, and 79261504 (February 15, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Mark A. Thurmon). [Section 2(d) refusal of CARWIZ, in standard character and design form (shown below) for, inter alia, vehicle rental, in view of the registerd mark WIZZ for, inter alia, car rental.]
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog comment: How did you do? See any WYHA?s
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2024.
posted by John L. Welch @ 2/21/2024
5 comments
5 Comments:
All three refusals were affirmed.
I dislike the first one. I understand how the USPTO got there, but it seems like over-baked reasoning.
The first one is absurd. The second one I'll give them, but both marks are conceptually weak. With the third, I agree.
Dear Mr. Welch, the image supplied with the Adorama case summary is a picture of Think Tank Photo, Inc.'s PHOTOCROSS sling bag. Here is a description from Think Tank Photo's website, with pictures, of one of the three sizes of Think Tank Photo's TURNSTYLE slingbag: see https://www.thinktankphoto.com/products/turnstyle-10-v2
I know almost nothing about TM and i approve all three refusals. I should be an appeals board judge.
Post a Comment
<< Home