TTABlog Test: Three Recent Section 2(d) Appeals - Outcome?
A TTAB judge (now retired) once said to me that one can predict the outcome of a Section 2(d) appeal 95% of the time just by looking at the involved marks and the goods/services. Here are three recent TTAB decisions in Section 2(d) appeals. How do you think they came out? [Answers in first comment.]
In re Parklife Innovations Ltd., Serial No. 88413981 (August 9, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Mary Beth Myles) [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark BAZOOKAGOAL for "sports training apparatus, namely, portable, retractable pop-up goal nets for soccer training and modified soccer training" in view of the registered mark BAZOOKA BALL for "amusement products, namely, inflatable balls; Athletic equipment, namely, striking shields; Balls for games; Balls for sports; Outdoor activity game equipment sold as a unit comprising paint ball equipment modified for playing games; Target equipment, namely, backers for targets; Target equipment, namely, stands for targets; Umpire protection equipment" [BALL disclaimed].
In re Oozootech Co., Ltd., Serial No. 79329157 (August 13, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Melanye K. Johnson) [Section 2(d) refusal to register the mark DOCSOLE for "Insoles for shoes" in class 25, in view of the registered mark DOCTORINSOLE for “Orthotic inserts for footwear” in class 10].
In re Cofftea Trading Company Ltd., Serial No. 97562979 (August 13, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Thomas H. Coggins) [Section 2(d) refusal of COFFTEA for "coffee; tea; coffee beans; fruit teas; herbal tea; peppermint tea; processed tea leaves; tea bags" in view of the identical mark registered for "restaurant services."]
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog comment: Predictions? See any WYHA?s
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2024.
posted by John L. Welch @ 8/16/2024
4 comments
4 Comments:
All three refusals were affirmed.
Curious why the COFFTEA applicant did not try to invoke the "something more" test typically applied in restaurant/food cases. It would have at least made it more difficult to affirm the refusal
I have read the "95% statement" on here many times, but today was the first time I realized that statement is actually an admission that the TTAB does not fairly weigh all the other Du Pont factors. Based on his comment above, I think Gene might agree with me.
Dave: I think that's a bit of a stretch. The Board does, however, affirm 90% or more of the 2(d) appeals that it hears.
Post a Comment
<< Home