TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Recent Section 2(d) Appeals Turn Out?
Here are three recent Section 2(d) appeals. No hint this time. How do you think they came out? [Answer in first comment].
In re PixelGood, Serial No. 98163828 (March 31, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Lawrence T. Stanley, Jr.). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark DESIGN IS IN THE DETAILS. for "visual design services in the nature of designing visual elements for on-line, broadcast, print, outdoor and other communication media," in view of the registered mark DESIGN IS IN THE DETAILS [no period at the end] for wall plaques, bowls, vases, and works of art in various media.]
In re BeBella Inc., Serial No. 97887864 (March 31, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge George C. Pologeorgis). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark GLITTERALLY PERFECT for "Eye-shadow; Eye liner," in view of the registered mark GLITTERALLY OBSESSED for "Glitter for cosmetic purposes; Body glitter; Body glitters; Face glitter; Face and body glitter; Hair glitter; Nail glitter; Nail grooming products, namely, tips, glue, lacquer and glitter."]
In re Cantina Imperfecto, LLC, Serial No. 97625773 (March 28, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cynthia C. Lynch). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark CANTINA IMPERFECTO for restaurant, bar, and catering services [CANTINA disclaimed], in view of the registered mark IMPERFECT in standard character and design form, for "food and drink catering; bar services; restaurant services."]
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlogger comment: How did you do?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.
posted by John L. Welch @ 4/09/2025
6 comments
6 Comments:
All three were affirmed.
At a 90% affirmance rate, you are battling strong odds
i swear i didn't look at the answer and my guess is that they were all reversed..at least they look to me like they should have been. the only one that wouldn't make me fall out of my chair if upheld is the third one
When was the line moved and why wasn't I told about it?
I looked at the examiner's evidence in the first case and none of it shows any of the goods listed in the cited registration...ridiculous!
I agree with Gene. I thought they were all reversed. I must be getting too old and time to retire.
Post a Comment
<< Home