The recent MANIKCHAND decision is one of only seven Sections 2(c) decision discussed at the TTABlog in the last 14 and one-half years. Set out below is a complete list. Note that five of the seven are precedential.

Section 2(c), in pertinent part, bars registration of a mark that “[c]onsists of or comprises a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular living individual except by his [sic] written consent ….” This provision applies not only to full names but also to shortened names and nicknames, as long as the name identifies a particular living individual.

A consent is required only if the individual bearing the name in the mark will be associated with the mark as used on the goods or services, either because: (1) the person is so well known that the public would reasonably assume a connection between the person and the goods or services; or (2) the individual is publicly connected with the business in which the mark is used.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Precedential No. 10: TTAB Dismisses Rare Section 2(c) Opposition Due to Death of Named Individual

Precedential No. 36: TTAB Gives the Boot to Nike’s Inadequate Section 2(a) and 2(c) Claims

Precedential No. 4: TTAB Affirms 2(a) and 2(c) Refusals of “PRINCESS KATE” and “ROYAL KATE” for Clothing

Precedential No. 12: TTAB Reverses Section 2(c) Refusal of FRANKNDODD for Legislative Information Services

TTAB Affirms Section 2(c) Refusal of MARTIN & WEYRICH ROSSO ALLEGRO for Wine

Presidential No. 44: In Rare Section 2(c) Ruling, TTAB Affirms Refusal of “OBAMA BAHAMA PAJAMAS”

In a Citable Section 2(c) Decision, TTAB Partially Cancels “KRAUSE PUBLICATIONS” Registration

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog comment: If someone tried to register the mark TTABlog PAJAMAS, I would certainly oppose under Section 2(c).

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2019.