Tuesday, September 12, 2023

TTABlog Test: Which of These Section 2(d) Refusals Was/Were Reversed?

Here are three recent appeals from Section 2(d) refusals. At least one of the refusals was reversed. How do you think these came out? Answers will be found in the first comment.

In re Belgravia Wood Limited
, Serial No. 90640925 (September 8, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge George C. Pologeorgis). [Section 2(d) refusal of HOLIDAZZLE for "Electric lights for Christmas trees; Christmas lighting, namely, electric holiday lights; electric holiday lights," in view of the registered mark DAZZLE for "LED (light emitting diode) lighting fixtures; LED (light emitting diodes) lighting fixtures for use in display, commercial, industrial, residential, and architectural accent lighting applications; LED and HID light fixtures; LED light strips for decorative purposes."] 

In re My Happi Gift LLC, Serial No. 97118213 (September 8, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Marc A. Bergsman) [Section 2(d) refusal of YANI L’ADORE, for “Business card holders in the nature of wallets; Card wallets; Clutch bags; Crossbody bags; Tote bags; Wallets,” in view of the registered mark YANNI for "tote bags." The English translation of L'ADORE is "love." The registrant is John Yanni Christopher, an allegedly famous musician.]

In re Lindsay Hoopes, Serial Nos. 90498749 and 90498755 (September 8, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christen M. English) [Section 2(d) refusals to register NAPANAC and NAPAÑAC for "Brandy; Fortified wines; Spirits" in view of the registered geographical certification mark NAPA GREEN for wine derived from grapes grown in Napa Valley, California, and for promoting sustainable winery practices in Napa Valley, and in view of the registered certification mark NAPA VALLEY for wine.]

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog comment: How did you do?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2023.


At 6:51 AM, Blogger John L. Welch said...

The NAPANAC refusals were reversed. The other two affirmed.

At 11:06 AM, Anonymous Dave Oppenhuizen said...

Although the "which was reversed/affirmed" posts are not the most riveting or engaging, they are an excellent test to gauge where the TTAB is drawing the line on 2(d) and 2(e) decisions. And in turn, that is extremely helpful while rendering trademark searches and name availability opinions for clients. So thank you!

At 7:25 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

All due respect, what kind of trademark law discussion would be "riveting" and/or "engaging". I think these posts are as much of that as any others. Audience participation!

At 9:56 AM, Blogger Christopher Donahue said...

My guess was also for the NAPANAC refusal, but I would also have reversed the HOLIDAZZLE refusal, as "DAZZLE" is laudatory and therefore should be afforded a relatively narrow scope of protection.


Post a Comment

<< Home