TTAB Posts August 2024 Hearing Schedule
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Tee-Tee-Ā-Bee) has scheduled three (3) oral hearings for the month of August 2024. The second one will be held virtually, while the first and third will be held in-person at the USPTO's Madison East Building in Alexandria, Virginia. Briefs and other papers for each case may be found at TTABVUE via the links provided.
August 6, 2024 - 11 AM: In re Zoetis Services LLC, Serial No. 97040314 [Section 2(e)(4) surname refusal of PORTELA for "veterinary pharmaceutical, namely, an injectable pain reliever for cats and dogs."]
August 27, 2024 - 2PM: In re Spectrum Professional Services, LLC, Serial Nos. 90323958, 90323964, 90323969, 90323971, and 90323975 [Section 2d refusals of HEALTHPRO HERITAGE, HEALTHPRO HERITAGE AT HOME, HEALTHPRO HP HERITAGE and design, HEALTHPRO HP HERITAGE AT HOME and design, sand HEALTHPRO PEDIATRICS, for ""Management of rehabilitation therapy services provided directly to other healthcare providers, namely, managed healthcare services in the field of occupational and speech pathology/language therapy programs and long term acute nursing care and post-acute home nursing care,' in view of the registered mark HEALTHPROS for "health and rehabilitation services provided directly to patients, namely, healthcare services and medical services."]
August 28, 2024 - 10 AM: In re Erik M. Pelton & Associates, PLLC, Serial No. 97325462 [Refusal to register the mark shown below, for "Entertainment services, namely, providing podcasts in the field of intellectual property law; Providing continuing legal education courses; Providing online non-downloadable videos in the field of intellectual property law," on the grounds of failure-to-function and unacceptable specimen of use. The Office also rejected applicant's Section 2(f) claim of acquired distinctiveness. ["The mark consists of a sunflower lapel pin uniform feature, with yellow petals forming the outside of the sunflower and a brown center outlined in black; the dotted lines in the image are not part of the mark but to show placement of the sunflower uniform feature on a suit lapel."]
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog comment: Any predictions? See any WYHA?s
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2024.
posted by John L. Welch @ 8/01/2024
1 comments
1 Comments:
Fascinating claim from the Examiner's brief in Pelton's appeal:
"This evidence demonstrates that a lapel pin would be more likely to be viewed as a fashion accessory than a uniform. This is especially true since the sunflower design has no connection at all to legal services. Were the mark a design that featured the Lady Justice, the scales of justice or something that the public associates with the law, the connection between the lapel pin and the services would be more readily apparent than the apparent randomness of a flower."
We all know that FTF refusals are nonsense and so the defense of them is usually nonsense, but here the EA seems to be saying that the putative mark's arbitrariness is a reason it can't function as a trademark, and it would be more likely recognized as a trademark if it were actually more descriptive.
Post a Comment
<< Home