Friday, March 04, 2022

TTABlog Test: How Did These Four Section 2(d) Appeals Turn Out?

Yesterday's SWEET GEORGIA BROWN case brought the TTAB's shutout streak for 2022 to 37 affirmances of Section 2(d) refusals without a reversal. Here are four more appeals decided this week. Has the streak been broken? Answer in first comment.

In re Probuild Software Inc., Serial No. 88009774 (February 18, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Michael B. Adlin) [Section 2(d) refusal of PROBUILD for "downloadable mobile applications, excluding online applications, for use by small businesses, and service companies to be used for the tasks of estimating, invoicing, expense data recording/accounting, sales data recording/accounting, payable and receivables accounting, billing/payment processing and managing clients," in view of the registered mark PROBUILDER ONLINE for "software as a service (SAAS) services featuring software for construction project management" [ONLINE disclaimed].]

In re Lohn Enterprises, Incorporated, Serial No. 88914168 (February 22, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Robert H. Coggins). [Section 2(d) refusal of MEL'S HOT DOGS in the logo form shown below left [HOT DOGS, HOT DOG, or FEATURING REAL CHICAGO STYLE HOT DOGS disclaimed], in view of the registered mark MEL'S DRIVE-IN [DRIVE-IN disclaimed] and the registered marks THE ORIGINAL MELS in standard character and design form (below right) [THE ORIGINAL disclaimed], all for restaurant services. The first cited mark is owned by a different entity than the other two cited marks.]

In re MAPAL Fabrik für Präzisionswerkzeuge Dr. Kress KG, Serial No. 79272512 (February 24, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Mark Lebow). [Section 2(d) refusal of TRITAN for drills for machining metal (class 7), adjusters and software for controlling drills (class 9), and installation, maintenance, and repair services for drilling tools (class 37), in view of the identical mark registered for  machine parts, including bearings and bushings.]

In re TRUsox LLC., Serial No. 88931435 (February 25, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Melanye K. Johnson). [Section 2(d) refusal of TRU (Stylized) for "Athletic apparel, namely, shirts, pants, jackets, footwear, hats and caps, athletic uniforms; Shoes; Socks; Ankle socks," in view of the registered mark TRUE for “golf shoes, footwear, socks, and hats."]

Read comments and post your comment here.

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

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2022.


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

In the third case (TRITAN), the refusal as to the class 9 goods was reversed. Otherwise all refusals were affirmed.


Post a Comment

<< Home