Which of These Four Section 2(d) Refusals Did the TTAB Reverse?
Here are four appeals from Section 2(d) refusals to register. The Board reversed at least one, but maybe not more. [By the way, I've heard a TTAB Judge say that most 2(d) cases can be decided just by looking at the involved goods/services and the marks.] Let's see how you do with these four. Answer found in comments. [Email subscribers will have to surf to the TTABlog in order to see the comments].
In re KCK International, Inc., Serial No. 77820964 (September 27, 2011) [not precedential]. Refusal to register the mark shown immediately below for "liquid tire puncture sealant used to protect automobile, motorcycle, bicycle and other heavy equipment tires from punctures" [SEAL disclaimed] in view of the registered mark PERMA SEAL for “distributorship services in the field of tire repair materials."
In re Filini Wine Company, LLC, Serial No. 77843310 (September 30, 2011) [not precedential]. Refusal of FILINI for wine in view of the registered mark FELLINE for wines.
In re CSI Collision Specialist, Inc., Serial No. 77797115 (September 30, 2011) [not precedential]. Refusal to register the mark CSI & Design (below) for "vehicle body repair services" in view of the registered mark CSI for "repair and maintenance of gas engines, gas compression equipment, electronic ignition, control equipment, lubrication and emission control equipment."
In re Boyer Refrigeration, Heating & A/C., Inc., Serial No. 76699557 (October 6, 2011) [not precedential]. Refusal of BOYER & Design (below) for "commercial and residential installation, replacement service and maintenance of heating, refrigeration, and air conditioning units, namely, gas and oil furnaces, gas and oil heat pumps, gas and oil boilers, geothermal units, air conditioning, air conditioning units, chillers, walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers,” in light of the registered mark BOYER for "construction services, namely, civil construction and tunneling; installation and maintenance of electrical systems; mechanical equipment installation; marine construction; and house and building demolition."
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2011.
posted by John L. Welch @ 10/19/2011
3 comments
3 Comments:
The Board reversed the third one, and affirmed the other three.
Kudos to the CSI applicant for their extrinsic evidence. The examiner attached nearly 100 pages of evidence but obviously neglected to look at registrant's website. I would think that would be the first place an EA would look! What better evidence then the registrant's own admissions that the goods are alike on their website.. and conversely, for the applicant, to see just how different they are! Well done. Had the examiner done his due diligence and checked out registrant's website, he would've seen just how different the goods are and would've saved applicant time and money.
I picked #2 for reversal. Oh well... back to performing clearance searches for clients...
Post a Comment
<< Home