Tuesday, May 03, 2022

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

Thus far in 2002, the Board has affirmed 77 of the first 80 Section 2(d) refusals it has considered on appeal. Here are the latest three appeals for your consideration. [Results in first comment].

In re Aubrac Holdings, Inc., Serial No. 88586817 (April 29, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Melanye K. Johnson). [Section 2(d) refusal of ULTIMATE AMMUNITION for, inter alia, "Ammunition; Ammunition for firearms; Rifle ammunition; Shells for large size ammunition; Shotshell ammunition; Small arms ammunition," in view of the registered mark ULTIMATE for "ammunition; shotgun shells; shotgun shell shot."]

In re Nano Magic, LLC, Serial No. 88879556 (April 29, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Mark Lebow) [Section 2(d) refusal of POWERED BY SCIENCE. WORKS LIKE MAGIC. for "cleaning preparations, namely, cleaning solutions and disposable wipes impregnated with cleaning solutions for the cleaning of surfaces, glass, porcelain, ceramic, mirrors, doors, vehicles, household items and devices, and electronic devices; all-purpose cleaning preparations," in view of the registered mark WORKS LIKE MAGIC POWERED BY SCIENCE for "deodorants for refrigerators; deodorizing products, namely, all purpose deodorizer preparations for household, commercial and industrial use."]

In re Hella Gutmann Solutions GmbH, Serial No. 79135477 (April 29, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cynthia C. Lynch). [Section 2(d) refusal of HGS DATA for "Updating, systematization, collection and maintenance of technical and diagnostic data for motor vehicles for the purpose of assisting motor vehicle mechanics to maintain and repair motor vehicles" [DATA disclaimed], in view of the registered marks HGS and the word-plus-design mark shown below, for, inter alia, "compilation of information into computer databases" and "systemization of information into computer databases" [GLOBAL SOLUTIONS] disclaimed.]

Read comments and post your comment here.

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

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2022.


At 8:13 AM, Blogger John L. Welch said...

all three were affirmed

At 10:31 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess the examining attorney staff is as good as it has ever been. A logical conclusion, no?

At 10:44 AM, Blogger Gene Bolmarcich, Esq. said...

Why do applicants continue to argue the marketplace realities when they should know that argument goes nowhere? The Board showed obvious frustration with that in the third case where, granted, the cited registration had a description of goods that should never have been permitted. The Board preaches that the solution in these cases is to "simply" file a partial cancelation action, like that is an expeditious and inexpensive process. There has to be a better way. I don't know what it is. My job is only to complain about it. Nevertheless they all seem to be WWTHA?s.


Post a Comment

<< Home