TTABlog Test: Which One of These Four Section 2(d) Appeals Was Successful?
Section 2(d) affirmances continue to run at about 90% this year (as usual). Here are three recent appeals involving four refusals. One of the refusals was reversed. How do you think they came out? [Answer in first comment].
In re Cygan Law Offices PC, Serial No. 97748442 (September 30, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge David K. Heasley). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark PATENT INSANITY for "Providing online non-downloadable educational videos and audio recordings regarding patent law, patent applications and patent strategy, for inventors, entrepreneurs, small business owners, paralegals, patent administrators and other legal professionals" [PATENT disclaimed], in view of the registered mark INSANITY for, inter alia, “legal agency services in the form of providing legal counsel and legal services in the fields of intellectual property law,” “legal advocacy services, namely, providing legal and paralegal services for intellectual property owners,” and “provision of information, advisory and consultancy services in the fields of internet-based social networking and intellectual property legal services."]
In re Dream Home Construction, LLC, Serial No. 98273894 (October 7, 2025) (Opinion by Judge Robert Lavache) [Section 2(d) refusal to register the mark DREAM HOME CONSTRUCTION (in standard characters) for “Custom construction of homes; Residential building construction; Construction of residential buildings; Consulting services in the field of home construction; custom building renovation; renovations of residential buildings" [HOME CONSTRUCTION disclaimed], in view of the registered mark shown immediately below, for "Housing services, namely, repair, improvement, and construction of residential real property"[HOME disclaimed].
In re Scrap-It, LLC, Serial Nos. 98080167 and 98080224 (October 8, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Thomas L Casagrande). [Section 2(d) refusals of the mark shown immediately below, for "Business consulting, management, and planning services in the field of field of debris removal from sites of building construction, renovation, restoration and demolition” (Class 35) and for "Providing temporary use of a non-downloadable web application for scheduling debris removal services" (Class 42) [WASTE MANAGEMENT disclaimed], in view of the registered mark SCRAP-IT! (in standard characters) for “Software as a service (SAAS) services featuring software for connecting customers wanting items removed from a location with companies and people that can haul away the items.”]
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlogger comment: How did you do? See any WYHA?s ?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.
posted by John L. Welch @ 10/10/2025
5 comments
5 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
Three refusals were affirmed. The refusal regarding the SCRAP-IT logo in Class 35 was reversed.
My apologies. The class 35 refusal was a specimen refusal, not a Section 2(d) refusal.
Whew...I tried to figure out how in the world ANY of those cases could have been reversed under 2(d)
Well, remember that the class 35 application did not receive a 2(d) refusal.
Post a Comment
<< Home