TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Recent TTAB Appeals Come Out?

Here are three decisions issued by the TTAB last Friday, the first a Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusal, the second a Section 2(e)(4) surname refusal, and the third a Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion refusal. How do you think they came out? Answers in first comment.

In re John Brent Moetteli , Serial No. 86491129 (October 18, 2019) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Frances Wolfson). [Section 2(e)(1) refusal of CASTLELOVERS for “Matchmaking services; services, namely, providing an on-line computer database featuring single people interested in meeting other single people” [Note example of use below]].

In re Kirsh Helmets, Inc. , Serial No. 87390575 (October 18, 2019) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christen M. English). [Section 2(e)(4) refusal to register KIRSH for “crash helmets, motorcycle helmets; protective helmets; safety helmets; safety goggles; motorcycle goggles” on the ground that the mark is primarily merely a surname. [The Board found that KIRSH is a “somewhat rare” surname, and applicant argued, inter alia, that the mark stands for “Kinetic Impact Reactive Safety Helmet”]].

In re Sergei Orel, Serial No. 87546394 October 18, 2019) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Linda A. Kuczma). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark TABOO for “Alcoholic beverages, except beer; Sparkling wines; Vodka; Wine” in view of the registered marks TABU for “Spirituous beverages” and HANDSOME DEVIL TABOO for “Alcoholic beverages, except beer” [Applicant asserted that the cited mark TABU is used only for absinthe and that sophisticated purchasers would be able to distinguish the marks]].

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog comment: How did you do? See any WYHAs?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2019.