TTAB Schedules Eleven (11) Oral Hearings for January 2019
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (T-T-A-B, not Tee-tab) has scheduled eleven (11) oral hearings for the month of January 2019. The hearings will be held in the USPTO's Madison Building in Alexandria, Virginia. Briefs and other papers for these cases may be found at TTABVUE via the links provided.
January 8, 2019 - 2 PM: Oakwon Demographics LLC v. Mission Escape Rooms LLC, Opposition No. 91227852 [Section 2(d) opposition to MISSION ESCAPE and MISSION ESCAPE ROOM for "Conducting live entertainment in the nature of games featuring room escape, puzzles, and team strategy," on the ground of priority and likelihood of confusion with the marks MISSION ESCAPE GAMES and MISSION for "Arranging and conducting entertainment by means of live interactive puzzle adventure games and challenges, namely, featuring room escape, problem solving, teamwork and strategy and social entertainment event"].
January 9, 2019 - 2 PM: In re Catalyst Connection, Inc., Serial No. 87351233 [Section 2(d) refusal of MAKING YOUR FUTURE for “business consultation services for the manufacturing industry” and “providing training courses, workshops and webinars in the fields of employee development, leadership, sales and marketing strategies, manufacturing techniques, industry best practices and green manufacturing” in view of the registered mark MAKING THE FUTURE. TOGETHER for goods and services including “arranging and conducting business conferences and expositions in the field of manufacturing” and “providing online non-downloadable e-books and e-newsletters in the field of manufacturing; education services, namely, providing live and on-line classes, seminars and workshops in the field of manufacturing”].
January 10, 2019 - 11 AM: In re Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel Group, Inc., Serial No. 87583832 [Section 2(d) refusal of ARAMARK FLEXFIT for various clothing items in view of the following registered marks: THE ORIGINAL YP FLEXFIT IT FITS YOUR LIFE with design; YP FLEXFIT TECH 110 ONE TEN with design; FLEXFIT DELTA; FLEXFIT UNIQUE TECHNOLOGY AND SUPERIOR COMFORT; FLEXFIT THE ONE AND ONLY ORIGINAL; PREMIUM FITTED CAP YP 210 FITTED FLEXFIT TECH with design; and FLEXFIT (different owners)].
January 15, 2019 - 10 AM: Los Santos, LLC v. Johnny D. Gabriel and Rosalie Gabriel, Opposition No. 91223574 [Opposition to registration of MEZQUILA for "alcoholic beverages except beer," on the grounds of lack of bona fide intent, genericness, mere descriptiveness, geographically deceptive misdescriptiveness, and deceptive misdescriptiveness].
January 15, 2019 - 11:30 AM: In re Wenger S.A., Serial No. 85157939 [Refusal to register SWISS MILITARY for "watches of Swiss origin" on the ground of genericness, and alternatively, mere descriptiveness].
January 15, 2019 - 1 PM: Volvo Trademark Holding AB v. Wolvol Inc, Opposition No. 91207836 [Opposition to registration WOLVOL for "Computer screens; Computer touchscreens; Electronic writing tablets; Laptop computers; Laptops; Notebook and laptop computers; Notebook computers; Overlays specially adapted for touchscreen displays; PC tablet; Tablet computer," on the grounds of likelihood of confusion with, and likely dilution of, the mark VOLVO registered and/or used for "a range of goods and services, including, automobiles, trucks, earth moving machines, and related goods and services, including . . . video screens, computers, computer software, and the like."
January 17, 2019 - 11 AM: In re Country Oven, Inc., Serial No. 87354443 [Section 2(d) refusal of COUNTRY OVEN for "Self-serve retail bakery shops; Retail bakery shops; bakery services, namely, online retail bakery shops" and "Bakery services, namely, the manufacture of bakery products to the order and/or specification of others" in view of the identical mark registered for "bread buns"].
January 17, 2019 - 1 PM: International Beauty Exchange, Inc. v. K & N Distributors, Cancellation No. 92063647 [Section 2(d) opposition to AFRICAN CLAIR FORMULA PLUS for "cosmetics,"in view of the registered mark AFRICAN FORMULA for "skin care products, namely, toilet soap, facial cream, and skin lotion; and hair care products, namely, shampoo, conditioner, straightener and mousse"].
January 22, 2019 - 11 AM: In re LedgerDomain, LLC, Serial No. 87159899 [Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusal of LEDGERDOMAIN (standard characters) for "Downloadable software for creating, managing, and analyzing data on blockchains, distributed ledgers and peer-to-peer payment networks in the fields of financial management, asset management, resource management and decentralized applications" and for "Application service provider featuring application programming interface (API) for developing mobile and web-based applications in the fields of blockchains, distributed ledgers and peer-to-peer payment networks in the fields of financial, asset management, resource management and decentralized applications for creating, managing, and analyzing data on blockchains, distributed ledgers and peer-to-peer transaction and payment networks; Software as a service (SAAS) services, namely, software development tools developing mobile and web-based internet applications and client interfaces in the fields of blockchains, distributed ledgers and peer-to-peer payment and transaction applications for creating, managing, and analyzing data on blockchains, distributed ledgers and peer-to-peer transaction and payment networks; Platform as a service (PAAS) featuring computer software platforms for use in developing software in the fields of blockchains, distributed ledgers and peer-to-peer payment and transaction networks and decentralized applications for creating, managing, and analyzing data on blockchains, distributed ledgers and peer-to-peer transaction and payment network"].
January 24, 2019 - 11 AM: In re Creative Edge Design Group, Ltd., Serial No. 87287662 [Section 2(e)(5) functionality refusal of the packaging design shown below, for "milk].
January 31, 2019 - 10 AM: Fifty-Six Hope Road Music Limited v. Sandal Factory, Inc., Opposition No. 91212582 [Opposition to GNARLY MARLEY'S for "Retail store services featuring clothing, souvenirs, and novelty gift items;" Souvenirs and novelty goods, namely, ornamental novelty buttons, badges, and pins;" and "Apparel, namely, t-shirts, shirts, pants, shorts, and dresses," on three grounds: likelihood of confusion with, and likelihood of dilution of, the marks MARLEY, BOB MARLEY and others, registered and/or used for a variety of goods and services, and false association under Section 2(a).
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog note: Any predictions? See any WYHA?s? Anything interesting?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2018.
posted by John L. Welch @ 12/28/2018
2 comments
2 Comments:
In the FLEXFIT case, I see the examining attorney used the form paragraph that states: “Decisions regarding likelihood of confusion in the clothing field have found many different types of apparel to be related goods,” followed by citation to seven cases in which clothing items were found related.
The Office should retire that form paragraph because it’s meaningless. One could just as easily write a sentence stating the opposite conclusion, followed by seven cases in which clothing items were found not related. And on at least two occasions, the Board has specifically pointed out this form paragraph is unhelpful. See In re Horizen, LLC, Serial No. 85379694 (T.T.A.B. June 26, 2013) (non-precedential) (“The examining attorney also relies on a string citation of cases wherein different types of clothing were found to be related goods; however, there is no per se rule regarding clothing and the record must support findings of fact on this point.”); In re RBR, LLC, Serial No. 77451496 (T.T.A.B. April 5, 2010) (non-precedential) (“There is no per se rule that various clothing items are related and citation to prior cases is not sufficient to build a record in support of the case at hand. There are also cases where clothing items are found not to be sufficiently related.”)
We also know that the Board often says there is no per se rule about products being related but a majority of the Board's holdings illustrate a de facto per se rule of the goods at issue being related - e.g. alcoholic beverages, foods, foods and drinks (what foods and drinks are not "used" together?).
Post a Comment
<< Home