TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Recent Section 2(d) Appeals Turn Out?
It's Friday, so here's your weekly/weakly TTABlog Test. So far in 2022, by my reckoning, the Board has affirmed 52 out of 53 Section 2(d) refusals. Here are the latest three for your consideration. [Results in first comment].
In re TdeltaS Limited, Serial No. 79282075 (March 17, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Thomas Shaw). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark DELTA GOLD & Design (shown below), for a variety of non-alcoholic, non-medicated beverages used to maintain, promote and enhance health, wellness and fitness and to treat medical conditions, in view of the registered mark DELTAGOLD (standard character form) for "nutritional supplements."]
In re Panacea Financial LLC, Serial No. 88947690 (March 18, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Karen Kuhlke) [Section 2(d) refusal of PANACEA FINANCIAL for, inter alia, "banking and financing services" and "financing and loan services" [FINANCIAL disclaimed], in view of the registered mark PANACEA VENTURE for "financial services, namely, venture capital investment firm services targeted at investments in companies in the healthcare and life sciences fields" [VENTURE disclaimed].
In re Sea Lion S.R.L., Serial No. 88980119 (March 18, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cheryl S. Goodman). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark WALLY & Design, shown below, for "Duffel bags, luggage, tote bags, briefcases, leather key holders being key cases, briefcase type portfolios and all purpose carrying bags in the nature of carrying pouches," in view of the registered mark WALLY (standard character form) for "Wallets with card compartments" and WALLY (standard character form) for "garment bags for travel and hanger clamps for use with such bags," the cited registrations having different owners.]
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog comment: How did you do?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2022.
posted by John L. Welch @ 3/25/2022
3 comments
3 Comments:
All three (or four if you count WALLY twice) were affirmed.
Why would any applicant go to the Board with such a broad description as 'financing and loan services' and expect to win. Without specifying any trade channels we all know that those financing services can be provided to ants to build an ant colony (I'm not kidding, just being a bit extreme,... but that's how blunt I've seen that rule applied by examining attorneys, and then you try to specify that your services are not provided to ants but get nowhere)
I guessed incorrectly that the "Panacea" matter was reversed, but it is ultimately not surprising. I agree that the broadness of the description contributed to the decision to affirm. - Sanjay Karnik, Amin Talati Wasserman LLP
Post a Comment
<< Home