Test Your TTAB Judge-Ability on these Four Section 2(d) Appeals
I once heard a TTAB judge assert that the outcome of most Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion cases may be predicted just by looking at the marks and the identified goods/services, without more. So try your adjudicatory skills on these four appeals.
In re SpaceCo Business Solutions, Inc., Serial Nos. 85198235 (November 6, 2013) [not precedential].[Section 2(d) refusal to register ADAPT for "desktop LED lighting fixtures for use in commercial and industrial lighting applications ordered through specialty office furnishings ordering services" in light of the registered mark EDAPT for "electrical lighting fixtures"].
In re Visionstar, Inc., Serial No. 85319715 (November 6, 2013) [not precedential]. [Section 2(d) refusal of MAXGAIN for "natural supplements for male enhancement" in light of the registered mark MAXIMUM GAIN for food, herbal, and other supplements].
In re Shackleton S.A., Serial No. 85450227 (October 15, 2013) [not precedential]. [Section 2(d) refusal of SHACKLETON "advertising agencies, advertising services" in view of the registered mark SHACKLETON GROUP & Design for various business consultation, management, information and advisory services].
In re Knauss Foods, LLC, Serial No. 85522084 (October 15, 2013) [not precedential]. [Refusal of the mark shown left below, for "oven-dried marinated beef steak slices and tenders; oven-dried marinated whole beef steak rounds" in view of the registered mark shown on the right below, for various food items, including "meat-based snack foods"].
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog note: Maxhint: they all came out the same way. See any WYHAs here?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2013.