TTAB Posts February 2020 Hearing Schedule
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has scheduled eight (8) oral hearings for the month of February 2020. The hearings will be held in the East Wing of the Madison Building, in Alexandria, Virginia. Briefs and other papers for each case may be found at TTABVUE via the links provided.
February 4, 2020 - 1 PM: In re Shaklee Corporation, Serial No. 87528703 [Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusal of PERFORMANCE for "Energy bars; energy chews; energy gummy; effervescent tablets for making a dietary supplement drink; supplement for boosting energy; supplement for boosting the body's production of nitric oxide; joint protection supplement; supplement for body fat reduction; powdered creatine; creatine capsules; creatine tablets; nutritional candy"].
February 6, 2020 - 11 AM: In re Tintoris Piana U.S. Inc., Serial No. 87776775 [Section 2(d) refusal to register PIANA HYDRO for "textile fibers" in view of the registered marks LORA PIANA and formatives thereof for textiles, fabrics, and yarns].
February 6, 2020 - 1 PM: The Christian Broadcasting Network, Inc. v. Delicious Ltd , Opposition No. 91240654 [Opposition to registration of BCBN for educational and entertainment services, chatroom services, and charitable fundraising services, in view of the registered mark CBN (in standard form) for television entertainment services, charitable fund raising, and educational services].
February 11, 2020 - 10 AM: In re Max Mara Fashion Group S.r.L, Serial No. 87786944 [Section 2(d) refusal of MAXMARA THE CUBE & Design for various clothing items "related to a customizable coat concept featuring coats and coat components that can be primarily transported within a portable cube carrier," in view of the registered mark THE CUBE for retail store services featuring clothing].
February 18, 2020 - 10 AM: Nike, Inc. v. Jamin Caldwell and Courtney Miles, Opposition No. 91240394 [Opposition to registration of JUST DREW IT! for athletic apparel on the grounds of likelihood of confusion with, and likelihood of dilution of, the registered mark JUST DO IT for clothing and other goods].
February 20, 2020 - 11 AM: Satco Products, Inc. v. Thread Group, Inc., Opposition No. 91231155 [Opposition to registration of BUILT ON THREAD for "Electrical and electronic equipment; general consumer electrical and electronic products; remote controlled apparatus; wirelessly controlled apparatus; apparatus and instruments for data communication; apparatus for lighting, heating, air conditioning, and ventilating, and control thereof," on the ground of likelihood of confusion with the registered mark THREAD for "LED lighting systems, namely, LED modules, power supplies, and wiring for use under cabinets and in coves"].
February 25, 2020 - 1 PM: In re Basic Industries International, Inc., Serial No. 87550193 [Refusal to register THE CRUSHER for a "hand-operated can compactor" on the ground of genericness, or alternatively, mere descriptiveness and lack of acquired distinctiveness.
February 26, 2020 - 12 PM: In re Monfrere, Serial No. 88004556 [Section 2(d) refusal of MONFRÈRE FASHION for "Denim jackets; Denim jeans; Denim pants; Jeans; Men's and women's jackets, coats, trousers, vests; Pants; Shirts; Coats of denim; Denims; Jacket" in view of the registered mark MY BROTHER for t-shirts].
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog note: Any predictions? See any WYHA?s?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2020.
posted by John L. Welch @ 2/04/2020
2 comments
2 Comments:
Why didn't the Examining Attorney issue a merely descriptiveness refusal after Applicant Max Mara amended its identification of services to indicate a feature of its clothing products is shipment in a cube... In addition, a competitive need to use a mark is not a good argument for a 2(d) case where the question before the Board is whether you are entitled to a registration for the mark. This is a WYHA for me and a question as to USPTO consistency with respect to identifying grounds for refusals.
The Nike opposition case against the pro se litigants is interesting only in that the pro se applicant blatantly admits in the brief that there is no intent to use the applied-for mark in connection with all of the applied-for goods. It's unfortunate that both parties had to spend money on this proceeding. How about a Would You Have Defended?
Post a Comment
<< Home