Thursday, August 03, 2017

TTAB Test: Which of these Two Section 2(d) Refusals Was Reversed?

Here are two Section 2(d) appeals decided two days ago. One of the refusals was reversed. Applying your jurisprudential skills and/or well-honed instincts, how do you think these came out? [Answer in first comment].



In re Mendocino Farms, LLC, Serial No. 86731456 (August 1, 2017) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Karen Kuhlke). [Section 2(d) refusal of EAT HAPPY for restaurant and catering services, in view of the mark shown below, for restaurant services].


In re TOELL Co., Ltd., Serial No. 86888544 (August 1, 2017) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Angela Lykos). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark PURE HAWAIIAN WATER & Design (below left) for "drinking water [PURE HAWAIIAN WATER disclaimed], in view of the registered marks HAWAII WATER & Design (below right) for "purified drinking water" [HAWAII WATER disclaimed] and PURE HAWAIIAN (Supplemental Register), in standard character form, for bottled water].

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog comment: How did you do?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2017.

5 Comments:

At 6:06 AM, Blogger John L. Welch said...

The second one was reversed.

 
At 4:49 PM, Blogger Pamela Chestek said...

I suck at this game.

 
At 9:39 AM, Blogger Glenn Mitchell said...

Guessed right, for a change.

 
At 11:08 AM, Blogger John L. Welch said...

Glenn, even a blind squirrel ....

 
At 2:29 PM, Blogger Glenn Mitchell said...

My point exactly, John!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home