TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Recent Section 2(d) Appeals Turn Out?
So far this year, the Board has affirmed 104 of the 108 Section 2(d) appeals that it has decided. How do you think these three came out? [Results in first comment].
In re Elektromotive Australia Pty Ltd., Serial No. 90025392 (July 6, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christopher Larkin) [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark shown below for "electric bicycles; electric motorcycles" [ELECTRIC BIKES disclaimed], in view of the registered mark STEALTH for "electronically motorized skateboards" and "electric motor vehicles, namely, all-terrain vehicles."]
In re Chattanooga Bakery, Inc., Serial No. 90287400 (July 7, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cheryl S. Goodman). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark shown below for "bakery goods, namely, marshmallow sandwiches" [MARSHMALLOW and PIE disclaimed], in view of the registered mark MELLOW PIE for "chocolates and chocolate based ready to eat candies and marshmallow snacks excluding brownies." [PIE disclaimed]].
In re Laramie Dorris, Serial No. 88901984 (July 12, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Thomas W. Wellington) [Section 2(d) refusal of JUST GYDDIUP for "hats; shirts" in view of the registered mark GiddyUp Boots (in standard characters) and the word-plus-design mark shown below, for "boots" [BOOTS disclaimed].
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 @ 7/14/2022
3 comments
3 Comments:
All three were affirmed.
Definitely all WITWWTATADTARTTATTHAC ("Why in the World Would They Appeal These and Did the Attorney Really Tell the Applicant That They Had a chance?")
Agree with Gene's comment completely.
Post a Comment
<< Home