Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Updated List of TTAB Opposition Decisions on Appeal to the CAFC

There are currently pending  before the CAFC, eight (8) appeals from TTAB decisions in opposition proceedings. The cases are summarized below, with links to the pertinent TTABvue pages where the decisions may be found, as well as to the pertinent TTABlog postings, if any. [Appeal briefs and other papers may be found via PACER; Oral argument recordings may be found here, if any].


Stone Lion Capital Partners v. Lion Capital LLP, Appeal No. 13-1353 (Opposition No. 91191681, January 18, 2013). [The Board sustained this opposition to registration of STONE LION CAPITAL for "financial services, namely, investment advisory services, management of investment funds, and fund investment services" [CAPITAL disclaimed], finding the mark likely to cause confusion with the registered marks LION and LION CAPITAL for various financial services [CAPITAL disclaimed]]. [Oral argument mp3 here].

StonCor Group, Inc. v. Specialty Coatings, Inc., Appeal No. 13-1448 (Opposition No. 91187787, June 22, 2012). [The Board dismissed this opposition to ARMORSTONE for "clear and pigmented coatings used in the nature of paint; Glazes; House paint; Interior paint; Mixed paints; Paint for concrete floors; Paint primers; Paint sealers; Paint thinner; Paints; Paints and lacquers; Pavement striping paint; Epoxy coating for use on concrete industrial floors," finding it not likely to cause confusion with the registered mark STONCLAD, STONHARD, and STONSHIELD for goods that include epoxy hardeners; and also finding the applied-for mark not merely descriptive of applicant's epoxy coatings].

Cutino v. Nightlife Media, Inc., Appeal No. 13-1541 (Opposition No. 91186025, April 25, 2013). [Dismissal of a Section 2(d) opposition to registration of NIGHTLIFE TELEVISION for "Video-on-demand transmission services, Internet broadcasting services, broadcasting services, namely, broadcasting programs over a global computer network to mobile telephones and computers, Satellite television broadcasting, and Television broadcasting," in view of the registered marks LONG ISLAND’S NIGHTLIFE (Stylized) [LONG ISLAND disclaimed] and NEW YORK'S NIGHTLIFE [NEW YORK'S disclaimed] for monthly magazines].

Implant Direct Int'l v. Clear Choice Holdings LLC, Appeal No. 14-1071 (Opposition No. 91190485, August 26, 2013) [The Board sustained this Section 2(d) opposition to registration of the mark REAL CHOICE, finding confusion likely with the registered mark CLEARCHOICE DENTAL IMPLANTS, both for dental implant services [DENTAL IMPLANTS disclaimed in the registered mark]. [TTABlogged here].

Nettadoz Enterprises v. Cintron Beverage Group, LLC, Appeal No. 14-1210 (Opposition No. 91200692, March 29, 2013). [The Board granted summary judgment to applicant Cintron on the ground that Opposer Nettadoz lacked standing to bring its oppositions to regsitration of the mark CINTRON (STylized) for beverages].

M.Z. Berger & Co. v. Swatch AG, Appeal No. 14-1219 and 14-1220 (Opposition No. 91187092, September 30, 2013) [precedential] [The Board sustained this opposition to registration of the mark IWATCH, in standard character form, for watches, clocks, and parts thereof, finding that applicant lacked the requisite bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce in connection with its identified goods. However, the Board dismissed Swatch's likelihood of confusion claim, from which dismissal Swatch has cross-appealed]. [TTABlogged here].

Amorepacific Corporation v. Primavera Life GmbH, Appeal No. 14-1255 (Opposition No. 91196106, September 11, 2013) [The Board sustained this opposition to registration of PRIMERA for "Cosmetics and cosmetic preparations; nonmedicated nourishing creams for skin; skin milk lotions; facial creams; cosmetic creams; toilet waters; make-up preparations; non-medicated skin care preparations; foundation cream; shampoos; beauty masks; make-up powder," finding the mark likely to cause confusion with the registered mark PRIMAVERA for, inter alia, perfumery and cosmetics].

Franciscan Vineyards, Inc. v. Domaines Pinnacle, Inc., Appeal No. 14-1269 (Opposition No.  91178682) [The Board dismissed this Section 2(d) opposition to registration of the mark DOMAINE PINNACLE & Design for "apple juices and apple-based non-alcoholic beverages" [DOMAINE disclaimed], finding it not likely to cause confusion with the PINNACLES and PINNACLE RANCHES for wine [RANCHES disclaimed]. [ TTABlogged here].

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog note:  See any WHYA?s here?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2013.


Post a Comment

<< Home