Monday, March 27, 2017

TTAB Test: Which of These Four Section 2(d) Refusals Was Reversed?

It has been said that one can predict the outcome of a Section 2(d) case 95% of the time just by looking at the marks and the goods. Here are four recent Section 2(d) appeals, one of which resulted in reversal. Which one? [Answer will be found in first comment].


In re Amogreentech Co., Ltd., Serial No. 88618200 (March 14, 2017) [not precedential]. [Section 2(d) refusal of SNOWMASK for "cosmetics; mask pack for cosmetic purposes," in view of the registered mark ICE MASK for "Facial beauty masks; facial cleansers; facial emulsions; facial lotion; facial masks" [MASK disclaimed]].


In re Rescue One Air, Serial No. 87000714 (March 16, 2017) [not precedential]. [Section 2(d) refusal of RESCUE ONE AIR, in standard character and design form (below), for "HVAC contractor services; Installation, maintenance and repair of HVAC units and systems," in view of the registered mark AIR RESCUE in standard character and design form (second below), for "air conditioning contractor services"].


In re Trilliant Food and Nutrition, LLC., Serial No. 87159762 (March 23, 2017) [not precedential]. [Section 2(d) refusal of JAKE'S for "coffee sold in individual cartridges for use in single serve coffee brewers" [COFFEE disclaimed], in view of the registered mark shown below, for various baked goods and confectionary products [DESSERTS disclaimed]].


In re Century Stone Incorporated trading as Century Quartz Stone, Serial No. 86687997 (March 24, 2017) [not precedential]. [Section 2(d) refusal of CENTURY QUARTZ STONE and CQ Design for "Epoxy resin-based slabs manufactured using crushed recycled rock and glass for building purposes, sold to fabricators of building products; Quartz, sold to fabricators of building products" in view of the registered mark CQ & Design for "quartz surface slabs, countertops and tiles; building materials, namely, quartz material used in the manufacture of countertops, bathroom vanities, bar tops, and tub surrounds; quartz floor tiles"].



Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog comment: How did you do?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2017.

3 Comments:

At 7:36 AM, Blogger John L. Welch said...

The fourth case (CQ) was reversed.

 
At 9:35 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Considering how common marks comprised of first names are in the food (and particularly restaurant) industry, pretty surprised the third one didn't get reversed, too.

 
At 2:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The fourth one felt like it could have gone either way. I was surprised at the third, however.

Looking at the actual decision, though, it looks like it was more of a procedural than substantive issue: The appellant relied exclusively on registrations to show that "Jake" was weak, and submitted zero evidence of actual third-party use of that name in the context of food.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home