Examining Attorney Corinne Kleinman maintained that the marks in the drawing and specimen are not the same because “the mark on the specimen includes stylization and/or a design element (the crossed out wording ‘ROLL’ and substitute term ‘STIX’) that creates an uncommon or ‘special’ commercial impression.”
In support of the Office’s position, the Examining Attorney cites to articles . . . reporting that crossed-out words accompanied by replacement wording can demonstrate: textual irony, the history of document changes, the deliberate change of thought, a way of saying something without really saying it, ironic commentary, rebranding by the change of commercial impression, an eye-catching form of advertising, a dual meaning, and an indication of differences or the value of a new offer from a prior one. We find that none of these vehicles of intended meaning can be conveyed by a standard character (typed) drawing.
In fact, applicant conceded that the crossed out word “Roll” is intended to show that BOWL & STIX is a follow-on product to its prior product, BOWL & ROLL. This intended commercial impression cannot be captured by the standard character drawing of BOWL & STIX.
Applicant pointed to several third-party registrations for marks in which a word was crossed out, but the Board once again noted that it is not bound by actions of examining attorneys in registering prior marks. [What’s the relevance anyway, since applicant is not seeking to register a mark with a crossed out word? –
The Board therefore affirmed the refusal to register.
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog comment: How did you do? I would refer to this product as “BOWL & STIX,” not “BOWL & CROSSED-OUT ROLL STIX.”
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2019.