Friday, July 17, 2020

TTABlog Test: Which of These Section 2(d) Refusals Was/Were Reversed?

Here we go again! The Board recently decided the appeals from the three Section 2(d) refusals summarized below. At least one of the refusals was reversed. How do you think these came out? [Answers in first comment].

In re NexBank Capital, Inc., Serial No. 86394529 (July 14, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Robert H. Coggins). [Section 2(d) refusal of NEXBANK for various financial and banking services, in view of the registered marks next and design for "banking services for young adults" (shown below), and NXT BANK (in standard characters) for "banking services; and personal and commercial insurance brokerage" [BANK disclaimed], owned by different owners].

In re Triunfo Foods Import & Export Corp., Serial No. 87684166 (July 15, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cheryl S. Goodman) [Section 2(d) refusal of LA PETITE BAKERY, in standard form, for "bakery goods; breads," in view of the registered mark LA PETITE FOODS, in standard form, for "ice cream, ice cream truffles, frozen confections" [FOODS disclaimed].

In re Nachman, Serial No. 88123747 (July 15, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Mark Lebow). [Section 2(d) refusal of NĀO AYURVEDA and design, shown below, for cosmetics, shampoo, creams, lotions, and the like [AYURVEDA disclaimed], in view of the registered mark NAOS, in standard characters, for "Skin soaps, Cosmetics, Hair Lotions"].

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog comment: How did you do?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2020.


At 6:39 AM, Blogger John L. Welch said...

Believe it or not, all three were reversed!

At 5:45 PM, Blogger Ira said...

I had the first reversed and the second affirmed. I punted on the third. Color me surprised.


Post a Comment

<< Home