Friday, August 27, 2021

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

The TTAB (Tee-Tee-Ā-Bee) 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In re Juice Generation, Inc., Serial No. 88536980 (August 25, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Angela Lykos) [Section 2(d) refusal of HI-FIBE for "Non-alcoholic beverages containing fruits and vegetables juices; smoothies; vegetable-fruit juices and smoothies," in view of the registered mark HI FIBE for "Food additives for non-nutritional purposes high in fiber for use as a flavoring, ingredient or filler for use in bread, tortillas, frozen food entrees, muffins, bagels, cheese, juice drinks, soups, cookies and nutritional bars."]

In re UT Fidem Foundation, Serial No. 88592284 (August 24, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cheryl S. Goodman) [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark shown below for "Small group Christian ministry services and providing religious faith counseling services" in view of the registered mark KEEP THE FAITH for "Providing a website featuring information about religious belief systems, and, in particular the Catholic religious belief system."]

In re Real-Time Marketing, Ltd., Serial No. 88590001 (August 24, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Michael B. Adlin) [Section 2(d) refusal of METALHEAD for "air fragrancing preparations for automobiles or vehicles," in view of the registered mark METAL HEAD for "non medicated skin care preparations; skin masks."]

 

Read comments and post your comment here.

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

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2021.

10 Comments:

At 7:18 AM, Blogger John L. Welch said...

The first two were reversed. The third was affirmed.

 
At 7:52 AM, Blogger Unknown said...

I guessed wrong - thinking the first two would have been affirmed and the third reversed as the first two were in the same field of use. Odd result?!? What are your thoughts John?

 
At 9:48 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The return of Juice Generation!

 
At 9:52 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, I thought the first one would be affirmed for sure.

Got the second one right.

Also a bit surprised about the third one. Although METALHEAD is seemingly a strong and arbitrary mark, aren't fragrance preparation FOR CARS and skin preparations/skin masks very dissimilar goods?

 
At 11:56 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Surely that's backward. The first two were affirmed and the third was reversed, right? I quit!

 
At 12:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guessed the same way - that the first two were affirmed and the last one reversed. How weird!

 
At 1:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree - it seems to me the first two would have been affirmed and the third reversed.

 
At 11:12 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I got the second one right.

 
At 12:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Juice Generation got lucky with a lazy examiner

 
At 3:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find it very odd that in the TTABs view, a significant portion of the relevant population being Catholic and arguably the most likely population in the US to translate a Latin phrase (especially when the translation is provided in the mark itself), would be less likely to do so than if the mark were, for example, written in Greek or Japanese.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home