Monday, September 18, 2023

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

The rate of affirmance for Section 2(d) refusals is running at 85% or so this year. That's about 5% lower than usual. Here are three recent TTAB decisions. How do you think they came out?

In re Pour Moi Limited
, Serial No. 79318691 (September 7, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Jennifer E. Elgin). [Section 2(d) refusal of POUR MOI for various clothing items in view of the identical mark registered for "Non-medicated skin care preparations and cosmetics for the face and body."]

In re Chick-A-Boom, LLC, Serial No. 90667527 (September 13, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Michael B. Adlin) [Section 2(d) refusal of CHICK-A-BOOM, for restaurant services, in view of the registered marks CHK-A BOOM for "providing of food and drink via online ordering, takeout services, and delivery services" and CHICKABOOM for "processed meat, namely, chicken."]

In re Destiladora del Valle de Tequila SA de CV, Serial No. 90269534 (September 15, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Robert H. Coggins) [Section 2(d) refusal to register DESPERADOS (in standard characters) for “Distilled agave liquor; Distilled blue agave liquor," in view of the registered marks shown below, for "beers."]

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog comment: How did you do?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2023.


At 7:16 AM, Blogger John L. Welch said...

All refusals were affirmed.

At 1:03 PM, Anonymous Valerie N said...

No surprises there!

At 1:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The first one is silly. Why even require registrations to have silly things like classes and G&S descriptions?

At 9:35 AM, Anonymous Stephen P. McNamara said...

I had hopes for a reversal in the first one, but as usual, my hopes were crushed by the apparent relatedness of skin care products and anything else.


Post a Comment

<< Home