TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Section 2(d) Appeals Turn Out?
Here are three recent TTAB decisions in Section 2(d) appeals. Remembering that a TTAB Judge (now retired) once said that one can predict the outcome of a Section 2(d) appeal 95% of the time just by considering the marks and the goods/services, how do you think these came out? [Answer in first comment].
In re Wilson Carter, Serial No. 98290246 (April 1, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Mark A. Thurmon). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark CLUTCH for "Batteries; Battery chargers for mobile phones; Battery chargers for use with electronics; Mobile telephone batteries" in view of the registered mark CLUTCH OUTDOORS for, inter alia, "solar-powered battery chargers for charging mobile and handheld electronic devices" [OUTDOORS disclaimed].
In re SC Bucin Mob SRL, Serial No. 79403753 (April 6, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Mark A. Thurmon) [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark shown below, for "Skadi-style non-metallic prefabricated houses; laminated wood carpentry, namely, laminated wooden exterior doors, wooden shutters" [WOOD disclaimed] in view of the registered mark INFINITY for "windows and plastic window frames."]
In re Halo Machine, Serial No. 98672491 (April 6, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Lawrence T. Stanley, Jr.). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark HALO MACHINE for, inter alia, "custom additive manufacturing of firearm display stands and wristwatch display stands for others" [MACHINE disclaimed] in view of the registered mark HALO for, inter alia, "additive manufacturing for others," 'custom additive manufacturing," and "custom additive manufacturing for others."]
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlogger comment: How did you do? See any WYHA?s ?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.
posted by John L. Welch @ 4/08/2026
3 comments
3 Comments:
All three refusals were affirmed
The second one should have been reversed. There are just some words (INFINITY being one of them) that inherently don't have much source identifying aspect to them, but I realize that is just "attorney argument" and I have no third party uses to turn that into an argument that would stick. There was a recent case you reported on John, where the Board came close to stating just that (the meaning of GOOD TIMES, without any evidence)
Almost identical/identical marks + overlapping descriptions of goods/services + nothing else to distinguish marks = refusal to register & upheld on appeal
Post a Comment
<< Home