TTABlog Test: JEWEL BOX Confusable With GEM BOX? Anti-Aging Preparations Related to Clothing? ECO-BRICKS Merely Descriptive of Toy Blocks?
Here are three mildly interesting recent TTAB decisions. How do you think they came out? [Answers in first comment].
Lego Juris A/S v. Once Kids LLC, Opposition No. 91228548 (August 18, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Karen Kuhlke). [Opposition to registration of ECO-BRICKS for "toy building blocks" on the ground of Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness and lack of acquired distinctiveness.]
Frame La Brands, LLC v. Sveba S.r.l., Vincenzo Salamone, Ornella Sorrentino, and Florin-Dumitru Suceava, Opposition No. 91245241 (August 18, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Marc A. Bergsman).[Section 2(d) opposition to registration of FRAME & Design for anti-aging preparations [shown first below], in view of the registered mark FRAME (stylized) for various clothing items [shown second below].]
Spring Meadow Nursery, Inc. v. Plant Development Services, Inc., Opposition No. 91252622 (August 15, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Micahel B. Adlin) [Opposition to JEWEL BOX for "live plants, namely distylium," in view of the registered mark GEM BOX for "live plants."]
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog comment: How did you do?
posted by John L. Welch @ 8/23/2022
2 comments
2 Comments:
All three oppositions were sustained.
The Frame La Brand case is not-citable; but are "designer marks" really entitled to all related personal care and luxury goods became Calvin Klein licenses his name to everything under the sun? So companies should be adopting "proper name-surname" marks for t-shirts brands in 25 and you get protection for handbags in 18, cosmetics in 3, and retail services in 35, for the price of one? Throw in supplements in 5 and now you have a deal! The expansion of the related-goods doctrine by the Board has to be reigned in at some point.
Post a Comment
<< Home