TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Recent Section 2(d) Appeals Turn Out?
The Board continues to run at an affirmance rate of about 95% for Section 2(d) appeals. Here are three more for your consideration. How do you think they came out? [Results in first comment].
In re Daniel Novela, Serial No. 90134566 (May 10, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Melanye K. Johnson) [Section 2(d) refusal of CASA DE NOVELAS for "eyewear retainers; Eyewear, namely, sunglasses, eyeglasses and ophthalmic frames and cases therefor" [CASA disclaimed], in view of the registered mark NOVELLA for "Ophthalmic lenses for eyeglasses."]
In re Milstead Technologies, LLC, Serial No. 88933287 (May 10, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Angela Lykos). [Section 2(d) refusal of SALEQUICK.COM & Design for "Application service provider (ASP) featuring e-commerce software for businesses for use as a payment gateway that authorizes processing of credit cards, gift cards debit cards or direct payments to merchants," in view of the registered mark QUICKSALE for "providing electronic processing of electronic funds transfer, ACH, credit card, debit card, electronic check and electronic payments."]
In re Flexa Network Inc., Serial No. 90002396 (May 13, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Marc A. Bergsman). [Section 2(d) refusal of FLEXA CAPACITY for "Providing electronic processing of collateralized cryptocurrency payments via a secure global computer network; collateralized cryptocurrency exchange services," in view of the registered mark CAPACITY for, inter alia, "electronic payment, namely, electronic processing and transmission of bill payment data" and "exchange services in the nature of execution, clearing, reconciling and settlement of trade and financial transactions via a global network involving . . . securities . . . and/or related financial instruments."]
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog comment: How did you do? See any WYHAs?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2022.
posted by John L. Welch @ 5/16/2022
4 comments
4 Comments:
Surprise! Not. All three were affirmed.
Perhaps if Flexa Capacity had submitted a design application where Flexa was clearly the dominant element, the outcome would have been different.
I'm confused as to why CASA was disclaimed! That might have made the difference.
The first two were a slam dunk WYHA.
From the description I would have reversed the third. Guess I need to read the opinion to see why if was affirmed.
Post a Comment
<< Home