LAIPLALAIPLA
LAIPLALAIPLA
  • About
    • About LAIPLA
    • Ambassador Outreach Program
    • Board of Directors
    • Committees
    • Administration
    • Member Firms and Companies
    • Past Presidents
    • Recent Past Presidents
    • Public Service Award
    • Diversity Fellowship
    • Bylaws
  • Events
  • Membership
  • Sponsorship
  • IP Blogs
  • Contact
  • About
    • About LAIPLA
    • Ambassador Outreach Program
    • Board of Directors
    • Committees
    • Administration
    • Member Firms and Companies
    • Past Presidents
    • Recent Past Presidents
    • Public Service Award
    • Diversity Fellowship
    • Bylaws
  • Events
  • Membership
  • Sponsorship
  • IP Blogs
  • Contact

TTABlog Quarterly Index: July – September 2019

October 18, 2019October 23, 2019| in The TTABlog| by John L. Welch
E-mail subscriptions to the TTABlog are available. Just enter your e-mail address in the box on the right to receive a daily update via Feedblitz. You may also follow the TTABlog on Twitter: @TTABlog.

Section 2(a) – Deceptiveness:

  • TTABlog Test: Is “Pili” Deceptive for Cosmetics Not Containing Pili Oil?

Section 2(a) – False Association:

  • TTAB Affirms Section 2(a) False Connection Refusal of CALIFORNIA BEEMERS for Auto Dealership
  • Precedential No. 25: TTAB Grants Section 2(a) Cancellation Petition: SCHIEDMAYER for Pianos Falsely Suggests a Connection with Petitioner

Section 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion:

  • TTABlog Test: Is This Fish Hook Design Mark for Clothing Confusable with “VF” for Retail Clothing Services? [Yes]
  • TTABlog Test: Is This Word+Design Mark for Whiskey Confusable with “OUTLAW” for Alcoholic Beverages? [Yes]
  • TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Recent Section 2(d) Appeals Come Out?
  • TTABlog Test: Is “ISABEL MORANT” Confusable with “MORANT” for Perfumes and Cosmetics? [Yes]
  • TTAB Finds “LINGO BUS” for Language Education Communication Services Confusable with “LINGO” for Telecommunication Services
  • “UHJ” Confusable with “UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE” for Religious Services, Says TTAB
  • TTABlog Test: Is “HYDRAPORE” for Breathable Waterproof Fabric Confusable with “HYDRO PORE” for Clothing? [Yes]
  • TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Recent Section 2(d) Appeals Turn Out?
  • Precedential No. 24: RICHARD MAGAZINE Not Confusable With RICARDO for Related Services, Says TTAB
  • TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Section 2(d) Appeals Turn Out?
  • Precedential No. 22: PIERCE-ARROW for Autos Confusable With PIERCE ARROW SOCIETY, Says TTAB
  • TTABlog Test: Are These Two Four-Legged Animal Design Marks Confusable for Clothing?
  • TTABlog Test: Are These Two “CANNONBALL” Marks Confusable for Beer? [no]
  • TTABlog Test: Is “KP QUIK STOP & Design” Confusable With KWIK STOP for Convenience Stores? [No]
  • Fame of VOLVO Mark Brings Section 2(d) Victory over WOLVOL for Computers
  • TTABlog Test: Is “LIQUOR SLINGER DISTILLING” for Liquor Confusable with “SLINGER” for Shot Glasses? [Yes]
  • TTAB Finds WIZGEAR Confusable with THE WIZ and NOBODY BEATS THE WIZ, Denies Abandonment and Fraud Counterclaims
  • SMART WIFI Confusable With WI-FI Certification Mark, Says TTAB
  • TTABlog Test: Is VITAL FLORA for Pet Supplements Confusable With FLORAVITAL for Supplements? [Yes]
  • TTAB Reverses Section 2(d) Refusal: Goods Unrelated and Consumers Sophisticated
  • TTABlog Test: Are Packaged Sprits and Rum Related to Restaurant Services Under Section 2(d)? [Yes]
  • TTABlog Test: Is MAIN LINE REFRESH Confusable With MAIN LINE HEALTH or MAIN LINE PLASTIC SURGERY? [No]

Section 2(e)(1) – Mere Descriptiveness:

  • TTAB Sustains Section 2(e)(1) Opposition, Finding “IR DEFENSE” Merely Descriptive of Protective Beauty Serums
  • TTAB Finds SKEETER BAND Merely Descriptive of . . . Guess What?
  • Precedential No. 19: TTAB Finds Certification Mark Merely Descriptive, Lacking Acquired Distinctiveness
  • Precedential No. 18: TTAB Affirms Trifusal of SCOOP for Ice Cream: Mere Descriptiveness, Failure-to-Function, and Unacceptable Specimen
  • TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Mere Descriptiveness Appeals Come Out?

Section 2(e)(4) – Primarily Merely a Surname

  • TTABlog Test: Is “KERRIDGE COMMERCIAL SYSTEMS” Primarily Merely a Surname? [Yes]

Section 2(e)(5) – Functionality:

  • Some Thoughts on Why Product Configuration Marks Seldom Survive TTAB Scrutiny
  • Precedential No. 23: TTAB Affirms Section 2(e)(5) Functionality Refusal of Umbrella Configuration
  • TTAB Finds Wedge Shape for Yoga Blocks Functional Under Section 2(e)(5)
  • Package Configuration Mark for Canned Fish Deemed Non-Functional but Lacks Acquired Distinctiveness, Says TTAB

Genericness:

  • TTAB Finds “BIG SIX” Generic for . . . . Guess What?
  • Precedential No. 21: TTAB Finds MALAI Generic for Ice Cream

Nonuse/Specimen of Use/Failure to Function:

  • TTAB Says Series of PREDICTIVE ENTREPRENEUR Educational Lectures Is Not a Single Work
  • TTAB Affirms Two More Failure-to-Function Refusals
  • TTAB Affirms Refusal of THERAFIT Because it Identifies a Component, Not Applicant’s Bed Sheets
  • Single Book Title Fails to Function as a Trademark, Says TTAB
  • TTAB Affirms Rejection of Specimens That Do Not Associate the Mark with the Goods
  • Precedential No. 17: Specimens Fail to Show Use of Mark for Retail Store Services, Says TTAB
  • TTAB Affirms Failure-to-Function Refusal of Graphic Tool Used By DJ’s For Harmonic Compatability
  • WORLD’S BEST DOWN Incapable of Functioning as a Trademark for Bedding Containing Down, Says TTAB
  • Ubiquitous “Uncle Sam” Image Fails to Function as a Trademark , Says TTAB
  • “100% REAL CALLINECTES CRAB FROM NORTH AMERICA” Fails to Function as a Trademark for Crabmeat, Says TTAB
  • TTABlog Test: Is This Electronic Brochure an Acceptable Specimen for Billboard Monitoring Services?
  • Precedential No. 18: TTAB Affirms Trifusal of SCOOP for Ice Cream: Mere Descriptiveness, Failure-to-Function, and Unacceptable Specimen
  • “QUESTION OF THE DAY” Fails to Function as a Mark for a Trivia Website, Says TTAB

Ownership:

  • TTAB Sustains Opposition to HOLLYWOOD HOTEL on Non-Ownership Ground

Unlawful Use:

  • Marijuana Vaporizers Are (Still) Illegal Under CSA: TTAB Affirms Two “JUJU” Refusals

Discovery/Evidence/Procedure:

  • TTAB Affirms Two More Failure-to-Function Refusals
  • Precedential No. 27: TTAB Excludes Evidence Due to Spoliation, But Declines to Enter Judgment as a Sanction
  • Precedential No. 26: TTAB Dismisses Cancellation Proceeding Due to Petitioner’s Fabrication of Evidence
  • TTAB Dismisses YOGOLÉ Opposition: Opposer Failed to Prove Standing
  • Precedential No. 20: TTAB Declines to Strike Summary Judgment Motion as Untimely After Respondent Consented to Extension
  • Precedential No. 16: Options for Cross-Exam of Foreign Trial Witness Are Limited, Says TTAB

CAFC Opinions:

  • On Remand, TTAB Finds CORN THINS and RICE THINS Generic for a Sub-Category of Crackers
  • CAFC Affirms TTAB: Appellant Waived Arguments by not Raising Them at the Board
  • CAFC Affirms TTAB: “ARTISAN NY & Design” Confusable With “ARTESANO NEW YORK CITY” for Clothing
  • CAFC Affirms TTAB: Louis Vuitton’s APOGÉE for Perfume Confusable with APHOGEE for Hair Products

Other:

  • TTAB Posts October 2019 Hearing Schedule
  • Griff Thomas Reports On “DENIM & CO.” Oral Hearing
  • TTAB Posts September 2019 Hearing Schedule
  • USPTO Examination Guide: Requirement of U.S. Licensed Attorney for Foreign Trademark Applicants and Registrants
  • Current Roster of TTAB Judges (August 2019)
  • TTAB Posts August 2019 Hearing Schedule

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2019.

IP Blog Categories

  • Announcements
  • Events
  • LAIPLA News
  • The TTABlog
  • Uncategorized
  • Wegner's Top 10
  • Wegner's Writings

Archives

Previous

Divided TTAB Panel Reverses Section 2(d) Refusal of MINIBAR SMARTSNAX for Minibar Snack Food

Next

“The Original Sin of Trademark Law: Failure to Function” – Northeastern Law School, Nov. 5th


Since 1934, LAIPLA has been educating and connecting members of the local intellectual property legal community

Pages

About 
Events
Membership
Sponsorship
Contact
Privacy Policy

Search
Contact

LAIPLA
1621 W 25th Street
Box 633
San Pedro, CA 90732
Phone: (323) 285-1654
Fax: ( 310) 878-0517
Email: office@laipla.net

© 2023 Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association. All Rights Reserved | Website design by SafeHouse Web.