Wednesday, March 06, 2024

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

A TTAB judge once said to me that one can predict the outcome of a Section 2(d) case about 95 percent of the time just by looking at the marks and the involved goods and/or services. Here are three Section 2(d) oppositions recently decided by the TTAB. At least one of the oppositions was dismissed. How do you think these three came out? [Answers in first comment.]

Hormel Foods, LLC v. Empacadora Dilusa de Aguascalientes S.A. de C.V., Opposition No. 91275380 (March 4, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Mark Lebow). [Section 2(d) opposition to registration of the mark shown below, for "Butter; Chicharron; Compotes; Eggs; Lard; Milk; Pork; Canned fruits and vegetables; Edible oils and fats; Meat extracts; Milk shakes; Milk beverages, milk predominating; Pork steaks; Jellies, jams, compotes; Meat, fish, poultry and game, not live; Preserved, dried and cooked fruit and vegetables; Unflavored and unsweetened gelatins," in view of the registered mark DI LUSSO for dry sausage, poultry, beef, pork, cheese , horseradish, mustard, and sauces.]

Juvia’s Holdings LLC v. Sustainable Nutrition, Inc., Opposition No. 91271554 (February 29, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Jennifer L. Elgin). [Section 2(d) opposition to ADJUVIA in standard character and design forms, for "Anti-aging cream; Anti-wrinkle cream; Moisturizing creams" (Class 3) and for "Nutritional supplements consisting primarily of astaxanthin and coconut oil with none of the foregoing for the treatment of diabetes" (Class 5), in view of the registered mark JUVIA'S SKIN for "Cosmetic creams for skin care; Cosmetic preparations for skin care; Moisturizing preparations for the skin; Non-medicated skin care creams and lotions; Non-medicated skin care preparations; Non-medicated balms for use on skin; Non-medicated cleansers, namely, skin cleansers; Non-medicated cleansers, namely, facial cleansers; Non-medicated exfoliating preparations for skin" [SKIN disclaimed]].

Baxter S.r.l. v. Wholesale Interiors, Inc., Opposition No. 91263387 (February 16, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Karen S. Kuhlke). [Section 2(d) opposition to registration of BAXTON STUDIO for furniture [STUDIO disclaimed], on the ground of likelihood of confusion with the registered mark BAXTER and Design for furniture.]

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog comment: How did you do?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2024.


At 7:05 AM, Blogger John L. Welch said...

The first one was sustained.
The second one was sustained as to the class 3 goods, but dismissed as to to class 5.
The third one was dismissed.


Post a Comment

<< Home