Monday, January 27, 2020

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

A (currently serving) TTAB Administrative Trademark Judge once said to me that one can predict the outcome of a Section 2(d) appeal 95% of the time just by looking at the marks and the involved goods or services. Here are three recent decisions in appeals from Section 2(d) refusals. One refusal was reversed? How do you think these came out? [Answers in first comment].

In re Hidive LLC, Serial No. 87819793 (January 24, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christen M. English). [Section 2(d) refusal of DUBCAST for "Transmission and delivery of television programs via the internet; Transmission of information in the audiovisual field; Electronic transmission and streaming of digital media content for others via global and local computer networks; Video broadcasting and transmission services via the Internet, featuring films and movies; Video-on-demand transmission services; Video-on-demand transmission services via the Internet," in view of the registered mark DUBLAB (in standard form) for "broadcasting programs via a global computer network"].

In re Marathon Tours, Inc., Serial No. 86086458 (January 23, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Lorelei Ritchie) [Section 2(d) refusal of ANTARCTICA MARATHON for "Travel services, namely, organizing and arranging travel, travel tours, excursions, and sightseeing travel tours; providing travel guide and travel information services; making transport reservation," and "Travel services, namely, making hotel reservations for others," in view of the registered mark ANTARCTIC ICE MARATHON & 100K and Design (shown below) for “Athletic and sports event services, namely, arranging, organizing, operating and conducting marathon races" [ANTARCTIC ICE MARATHON & 100K” and the geographic representation of Antarctica disclaimed].

In re KC Investment Inc., Serial No. 87897588 (January 16, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Deputy Chief Judge Mark A. Thurmon).[Section 2(d) refusal of DADDY GANG for various clothing items, in view of the registered mark GOOD DAD GANG for overlapping clothing items].

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog comment: How did you do? Any WYHAs here?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2020.


At 6:19 AM, Blogger John L. Welch said...

The ANTARCTICA refusal was reversed.

At 10:24 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

They should have all been reversed. "DUB" is a very weak formative for anything related to A/V. And DADDY GANG vs. GOOD DAD GANG present very different consumer impressions.

At 6:57 PM, Blogger TMAttorneyHeller said...

I agree with Anonymous

At 9:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Agreed with the other anonymous.


Post a Comment

<< Home