TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Recent Section 2(d) Appeals Turn Out?
Section 2(d) affirmances are running at about 90% this year (as usual). Here are three recent appeals. No hints this time. How do you think they came out? [Answer in first comment].
In re The Gallen Group, Serial No. 98335808 (July 24, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Martha B. Allard). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark THE BATHING BEAUTIES for "Headwear, namely, headscarfs, headwraps, headbands," in view of the registered mark BATHING BEAUTY for, inter alia, "Women’s clothing, namely, shirts, dresses, skirts, blouses."]
In re Broadstreet Impact Services, LLC, Serial Nos. 97920876 & 98216202 (July 31, 2025) (Opinion by Judge Thomas L. Casagrande) [Section 2(d) refusal to register the mark BROADSTREET, in standard character form and in the design form shown below, for, inter alia, "Fund administrative services, namely, preparation of accounting and financial statements for others," in view of the registered mark BROAD STREET PLANNING for "Financial planning; Financial planning consultation; Investment advisory services" [PLANNING disclaimed].]
In re Ironside Realty, Serial No. 98410651 (August 4, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Lawrence T. Stanley, Jr.). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark shown below, for “real estate management” and “real estate development” [REALTY disclaimed], in view of the registered mark IRONSIDE NEWARK for "real estate services, namely, rental, leasing and management of commercial properties, offices and office space," and "real estate development and construction of commercial properties, offices and office space" [NEWARK disclaimed].
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlogger comment: How did you do? See any non-WYHA?s ?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.
posted by John L. Welch @ 8/07/2025
2 comments
2 Comments:
All refusals were affirmed.
In the Broadstreet case, as is typical, the Examining Attorney provided seemingly random website pages for multiple entities that proved beyond a reasonable doubt (of course) that the services are related. The application and registration listed a myriad of services in the financial field the most that I could tell from looking at them is that, yes, they are in the financial field. Without pointing out exactly where the relevant services were advertised in these website pages, the applicant was apparently supposed to guess why thoe website pages were probative and the judges of course amazingly were able to figure that out so as to find the evidence sufficiently probative that there was little to no discussion of this required. Maybe that's just part of the skillset the bring to the job.
Post a Comment
<< Home