TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Section 2(d) Appeals Turn Out?
A now-retired TTAB judge once said to me that one can predict the outcome of a Section 2(d) appeal 95% of the time by looking at just the marks and the goods/services. Here are three appeals decided recently. Let's see how you do. [Answers in first comment].
In re BS Liquor, LLC DBA MudHen Brewing Company, Serial No. 97474171 (August 31, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Wendy B. Cohen). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark MUDHEN BREWING COMPANY for "beer" [BREWING COMPANY disclaimed] in view of the registered mark MUD HENS for "bar and restaurant services."]
In re ALLCITY Network, Inc., Serial No. 98209334 (August 31, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christopher C. Larkin). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark KNUX for various clothing items, including t-shirts, sweatshirts, and jackets, in view of the registered mark NUX for various clothing items, including t-shirts, sweatshirts, and jackets.]
In re Leskro Incorporated, Serial No. 98644460 (September 1, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Thomas L. Casagrande). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark KATIE’S KANDY KORNER [CANDY disclaimed] in view of the registered mark CAROL’S CANDY CORNER, both marks in standard form, for candy.]
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 @ 9/03/2026
8 comments
8 Comments:
All three refusals were affirmed
Thank you yet again John for providing this opportunity to learn. Please keep up the good work.
I've never confused my cousin Katie with my colleague Carol. But I guess there's a first time for everything.
Nice that Carol has a monopoly on CANDY CORNER, I suppose. Wonder if these guys are pissed: https://candycorner.com/. Or these guys: https://candykorner.com/. Or these guys: https://candycornercandystore.com/. Or these guys: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61580475013116#. Ok I'll stop now.
The only one that I thought was even close was #3
Would have appealed. Disagree that the differences between Katie and Carol "pale" in comparison to the shared "CANDY CORNER" / "KANDY KORNER" segment
The CANDY CORNER opinion makes no sense. Was that opinion really written by Casagrande? Or a clerk? Or maybe AI?
The examiner cited two marks, the opinion only discussed one and ignored the other.
In my opinion, CAROL's v. KATIE's are clearly distinguishable even with the added clearly descriptive term CANDY CORNER - (CANDY disclaimed). The Board said: “The two names may be different, but they still have significant similarities.” Huh? How are CAROL and KATIE similar? I would guess the two marks could be registered alone and no examiner would ever cite CAROL against KATIE for “candy".
The Board did not even discuss what seemed to be a much closer mark - the registered mark CANDYKORNER - simply saying in the last sentence of the opinion: "There is no need to assess whether refusal is also appropriate in view of the [other cited] mark [CANDYKORNER].” Why? Analysis based on that mark might have changed my mind completely.
So, the only reason KATIE got blocked by CAROL is because KATIE added the merely descriptive term KANDY KORNER.
I would expect if appealed this opinion could get reversed or sent back for further review based on a failure to properly analyze the issues.
Or KATIE should just try to register KATIE’S by itself and put the words KANDY KORNER underneath in smaller letters on her signage. Oh, except that someone else appears to have filed for KATIE’S by itself (stylized) in Class 30 and just got published AND there is another registration for KATIE’S CAKES. So now she has to oppose someone else too and maybe get consent?
Poor Katie.
I don't like the last one, but I get it.
Post a Comment
<< Home