TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Recent Section 2(d) Appeals Turn Out?
Last Friday, the Board ruled on three Section 2(d) appeals. How do you think they came out? [Answer in first comment].
In re Tyler Clement, Serial No. 97626706 (March 14, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Jennifer L. Elgin) [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark MOONSTONE RITUALS for "Candles for home decor and modern living" in view of the registered mark MOONSTONE CHANDLERY for "aromatherapy fragrance candles; candles" [CHANDLERY disclaimed].]
In re Brouhaha Tea Company LLC, Serial No. 97669586 (March 14, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Robert H. Coggins). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark BROUHAHA TEA CO. for tea, tea bags, and various tea products [TEA CO. disclaimed] in light of the registered marks BREW HAHA! for coffee and BREW-HAHA! for "restaurant, cafe, and retail bakery services; retail stores featuring ground and whole bean coffee; cocoa; tea; baked goods; namely, cookies, muffins[;] housewares; namely, coffee cups, mugs."]
In re OBON3 LLC, Serial No. 97858042 (March 14, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Martha B. Allard). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark shown below for "Downloadable computer software for conducting financial transactions, gratuity payment processing and instructional user guides sold as a unit; Downloadable computer software and firmware for conducting financial transactions, gratuity payment processing," in view of the registered mark E-Z TIP for downloadable software for electronic payments.]
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlogger comment: How did you do?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.
3 Comments:
All three were affirmed.
I would have thought the last one would have been reversed.
It makes no sense to me that "retail services for {list whatever goods you feel like listing here}" is always unequivocally going to be considered related to ANY ONE of those goods you listed there! No rationale for that "rule"
Post a Comment
<< Home