Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Test Your TTAB Judge-Ability: Which One of These Three 2(d) Refusals Did the Board Reverse?

Here we go again, all you TTAB Judge-wannabees out there. The Board affirmed two of the three Section 2(d) refusals summarized below; it reversed one. Let's see if you come up with the same results based on a quick look at the marks and goods/services involved. [Answer in comments].

In re Flowerhorn, Serial No. 77847440 (July 26, 2011) [not precedential]. [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark HOT N JUICY CRAWFISH and Design (shown below left) for "bar services; restaurant services featuring seafood, namely, Cajun style crawfish, shrimp, crab, and oysters" [CRAWFISH disclaimed], in view of the registered mark HOT N JUICY and Design (shown below right) for "restaurant and carry out restaurant services"].

In re Bookriff Media Inc., Serial No. 77537045 (July 28, 2011) [not precedential]. [Section 2(d) refusal of BOOKRIFF for electronic books in the field of self book publishing, for book publishing, and for providing a website allowing users to build books online, in light of the registered mark RIF for "newsletters dealing with reading" and CLUB RIF for publications and educational services concerning literacy programs for children].

In re Intrafitt, Inc., Serial No. 77644949 (July 22, 2011) [not precedential]. [Section 2(d) refusal to register INTRAFITT INDIVIDUALIZED NUTRITION AND EXERCISE PROGRAMS for "weight reduction diet planning and supervision and physical fitness consultation" [INDIVIDUALIZED NUTRITION AND EXERCISE PROGRAMS disclaimed], in view of the registered mark INTERFIT for "health spa services for corporate employees"].

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2011.


At 6:33 AM, Blogger John L. Welch said...

Answer: the Board reversed the second one.

At 11:54 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That was relatively easy, although No. 3 is a lame refusal.

At 3:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Finally got one right! I agree No. 3 was a lame refusal too.


Post a Comment

<< Home