Friday, August 06, 2021

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

The TTAB recently decided the appeals from the three Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion refusals summarized below. At least one of the three refusals was reversed. Let's see how you do in predicting the results. [Answer will be found in the first comment.]

In re Golf Partner Co., Ltd., Serial No. 87409894 (August 4, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Peter W. Cataldo) [Section 2(d) refusal of NEXGEN for golf clubs and golf accessories, in view of the registered mark THE NEXT GENERATION IN GOLF MATS! for "driving practice mats."]


In re Masco Canada Limited, Serial No. 88619996 (August 4, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Albert Zervas) [Section 2(d) refusal of ZAHRA for "plumbing products, namely, bathing units in the nature of bathtubs and shower enclosures," in view of the registered marks ZARA and ZARA HOME for lamps, lamp shades, mirrors, and soap.]


In re Get Cozy Holdings LLC, Serial No. 88644497 (July 28, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Mark Lebow) [Section 2(d) refusal of BUBBLES & BREWS for "bar services in the nature of providing a mobile bar without a bartender; mobile bar services; mobile bar rentals; mobile bar services for providing drinks" [BREWS disclaimed], in view of the registered mark BEER AND BUBBLES for "catering services" [BEER disclaimed].]


Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog comment: How did you do? See any WYHAs here?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2021.


At 6:35 AM, Blogger John L. Welch said...

The ZAHRA refusal was reversed. The other two, affirmed.


Post a Comment

<< Home