Thursday, May 18, 2023

TTABlog Test: Which of These Three Section 2(d) Oppositions Was/Were Dismissed?

A TTAB judge once told me that one can predict the outcome of a Section 2(d) case 95% of the time by just looking at the involved goods and services and the marks. Maybe he or she was referring to ex parte cases only. Anyway, let's see how you do with the three oppositions summarized below. At least one of them was dismissed. Answer(s) in the first comment.

Herve Brin v. PSBC Limited, Opposition No. 91267498 (May 15, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cindy B. Greenbaum) [Opposition to registration of POUPETTE ST BARTH for perfumery and personal care products (ST BARTH disclaimed), in view of the registered marks ST BARTH (in standard characters) and LSB LIGNE ST BARTH and Design (LIGNE disclaimed), for overlapping products.]

CC Serve Corporation v. Apex Bank, Opposition No. 91254295 (May 12, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christen M. English). [Opposition to registration of ASPIRE BANK & Design for "banking and financing services" (BANK disclaimed) in view of the registered mark ASPIRE for "credit card services."]

Daniel J. Fountenberry v. Life of Ease LLC Opposition No. 91270132 (May 8, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Michael B. Adlin) [Opposition to registration of the mark V COTEACHER & Design for writing instruments, educational toys for teaching math principles, and for educational services, namely web-based learning instruction, in view of the registered mark COTEACHER for “licensing of software in the framework of software publishing."]

Read comments and post your comment here.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2023.


At 7:20 AM, Blogger John L. Welch said...

The first two oppositions were sustained. The third was dismissed.


Post a Comment

<< Home