TTABlog Test: Which of These Three Section 2(d) Refusals Was/Were Overturned on Appeal?
The TTAB affirmance rate for Section 2(d) appeals last year fell just under 90%. So far this year it's back to 90%. Here are three recent Board decisions, at least one of which reversed the refusal. How do you think they came out? [Answer in first comment].
In re Sycamore Growth Group, LLC, Serial No. 98125231 (May 8, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Wendy B. Cohen). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark SYCAMORE GROWTH GROUP for "tax consulting services in connection with identifying tax credits" [GROUP disclaimed] in view of the registered mark SYCAMORE CAPITAL in word and logo form for "financial services, namely, financial management, investment advice, mutual fund investment, financial planning services, and investment management services” [CAPITAL disclaimed].
In re All Strong Industry (USA) Inc., Serial No. 98293359 (May 8, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cheryl S. Goodman). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark GREEN LIVING for "Indoor window blinds" [GREEN disclaimed] in view of the registered mark LIVINGREEN for "Furniture; furniture, namely, mirrors, tables, desks, chairs; picture frames."]
In re Mae Daly’s Events LLC, Serial No. 98126095 (May 5, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cheryl S. Goodman). [Section 2(d) refusal to register the mark MAE DALY’S for "Restaurant services; bar services; catering services" in view of the registered mark DALY for "Restaurant services."]
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlogger comment: How did you do?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.
posted by John L. Welch @ 5/13/2025
2 comments
2 Comments:
The first one was reversed ("over twenty third-party uses" (even in the absence of third-party registrations) "support[s] that consumers have become conditioned to distinguish between different SYCAMORE-formative marks based on minute distinctions."). The other two were affirmed
I would have guessed the third.
Post a Comment
<< Home