TTAB Test: Which of these Two Section 2(d) Refusals Was Reversed?
Here are two Section 2(d) appeals decided two days ago. One of the refusals was reversed. Applying your jurisprudential skills and/or well-honed instincts, how do you think these came out? [Answer in first comment].
In re Mendocino Farms, LLC, Serial No. 86731456 (August 1, 2017) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Karen Kuhlke). [Section 2(d) refusal of EAT HAPPY for restaurant and catering services, in view of the mark shown below, for restaurant services].
In re TOELL Co., Ltd., Serial No. 86888544 (August 1, 2017) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Angela Lykos). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark PURE HAWAIIAN WATER & Design (below left) for "drinking water [PURE HAWAIIAN WATER disclaimed], in view of the registered marks HAWAII WATER & Design (below right) for "purified drinking water" [HAWAII WATER disclaimed] and PURE HAWAIIAN (Supplemental Register), in standard character form, for bottled water].
TTABlog comment: How did you do?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2017.
posted by John L. Welch @ 8/03/2017
8 comments
8 Comments:
The second one was reversed.
FYI, the standard character registered mark PURE HAWAIIAN for bottled drinking water and bottled water was also cited against the PURE HAWAIIAN WATER mark.
I suck at this game.
Guessed right, for a change.
Glenn, even a blind squirrel ....
My point exactly, John!
Thanks for making me feel better, Pam. I thought I was the only one that sucked at this!
For once, I guessed correctly. That said, it was in fact a "guess"!
Post a Comment
<< Home