TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Recent Section 2(d) Appeals Turn Out?
It's early, but so far in 2025 the Board has reversed one out of five Section 2(d) likelihood-of-confusion refusals on appeal. Here are three recent decisions. How do you think they came out? [Answer in first comment].
In re PT. Modiva International, Serial No. 79357814 (January 30, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christoper C. Larkin) [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark DEOREX in the stylized form shown below, for "Preparations for dyeing and tinting of hair, namely, hair dye, hair coloring and dyes; Hair shampoo; Personal deodorants; Make-up kits comprised of cosmetics, lipsticks, beauty masks; Cosmetics; Skincare cosmetics; Cosmetic creams; Lipsticks; Beauty masks; Perfumes; Perfume, eau de Cologne and aftershaves; Antiperspirant soap” in view of the registered mark DEODOREX for “dietary and nutritional supplements."]
In re AM Hospitality, LLC, Serial No. 97604912 (February 4, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Angela Lykos). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark LAUGHING BUDDHA RAMEN for "Restaurant services" [RAMEN disclaimed], in view of the registered mark LAUGHING BUDDHA COMEDY for “Education services, namely, providing live and on-line workshops in the field of comedy; Presentation of live comedy shows" [COMEDY disclaimed]].
In re Juiceland IP Holdings, LLC, Serial No. 97830521 (February 5, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Wendy B. Cohen). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark DR. DOCTOR "fruit juice; fruit juice beverages; vegetable-fruit juices; vegetable juice; non-alcoholic drinks, namely, energy shots" in view of the registered mark DR DR for "beverages, namely, carbonated and noncarbonated flavored sodas and drinking water."]
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlogger comment: How did you do?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.
posted by John L. Welch @ 2/07/2025
4 comments
4 Comments:
All three were affirmed
My guess was that they were ALL reversed. I'm curious to learn all about how it's common for restaurants to also operate comedy clubs (and I don't want to hear how comedy clubs serve food...that's IRRELEVANT!)
Come on, Gene! You know the deck is stacked against the applicant.
My mind knows but my heart is still hoping that the TTAB will someday see the light. I don't think DR DR necessarily "means" Doctor Doctor. I think there is a big difference between a restaurant and a comedy club that has a "restaurant" (airlines also are related to restaurants because they serve "food"..hey I'm starting to get it ;) and 15 registrations are not sufficient proof of relatedness especially when an examining attorney is too lazy to submit at least one example involving actual use.
Post a Comment
<< Home