Friday, February 16, 2018

TTAB Test: Which of These Three Section 2(d) Refusals Was Reversed?

A TTAB judge once stated that one can predict the outcome of a Section 2(d) appeal 95% of the time just by looking at the marks and the goods or services. Presented for your perusal are three recent TTAB decisions in Section 2(d) appeals. One was reversed. Which one? [Answer in first comment].

In re CID Resources, Inc., Serial No. 86828751 (February 13, 2018) [not precedential] [Section 2(d) refusal to register the mark GRACE (in standard character form) for "Medical wearing apparel, namely, scrub tops and bottoms; medical wearing apparel, namely, pants for emergency medical personnel" in Class 10; and "Nurse’s apparel, namely, tops and bottoms, uniforms, lab coats; scrubs not for medical purposes" in Class 25, in view of the identical mark registered for "women’s sportswear, namely, jackets, pants, skirts, blouses, dresses, shirts, and knit tops, but excluding pantyhose and hose"].

In re Advanced Total Marketing Systems, Inc., Serial No. 86860062 (February 14, 2018) [not precedential] [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark shown immediately below, for "Latin American style food products, namely, processed flavored plantains slices, processed flavored yucca chips; Latin American Style food products, namely, fired flavored peanuts and baked flavored peanuts"

in view of the registered mark shown below left for "candy for consumption on and off the premises" and "retail candy and gift store services," the registered mark shown below right for "Dairy-based snack foods excluding ice cream, ice milk and frozen yogurt; Fruit-based food beverage; Oils and fats for food; Snack food dips; Vegetable-based snack foods," and the registered mark YUMMYS in standard character form for "Vegetable-based snack foods; Fruit-based snack foods; Vegetable chips; Fruit chips; Milk products excluding ice cream, ice milk and frozen yogurt"].

In re Spartan Detective Agency, Inc., Serial No. 87172299 (February 9, 2018) [not precedential] [Section 2(d) refusal of WE DO IT ALL! for "detective agency services" in view of the registered marks JUST CALL – WE DO IT ALL! for "legal services" and MAKE THE CALL WE DO IT ALL! for "legal services; providing legal services in the field of injury law, workers' compensation law, and social security disability law"].

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog comment: How did you do?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2018.


At 6:10 AM, Blogger John L. Welch said...

The YUMMIES refusal was overturned.

At 7:05 AM, Blogger said...

Nailed it

At 7:27 AM, Blogger Brad Salai said...

That was my last choice, sigh.

At 9:19 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good, they got it right!

At 4:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

They all should have been overturned.

At 2:55 PM, Blogger Heather Bond Vargas, Esq. said...

I think the Grace one was right. I would have overturned the other two.

At 9:04 PM, Anonymous Arizona Trademark Attorney said...

I'm surprised that the WE DO IT ALL! never received a failure to function refusal. Given the specimen, that would have seemed to be a considerable risk.


Post a Comment

<< Home