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
  • 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
  • Contact

TTABlog Test: Which of these Section 2(d) Refusals Was/Were Reversed?

July 10, 2020August 17, 2020| in The TTABlog| by kerrycoughlin
A TTAB judge once said to me that one can predict the outcome of a Section 2(d) case 95% of the time just by looking at the marks and the goods or services. Here are three recent decisions in appeals from Section 2(d) refusals. At least one of the refusals was reversed? How do you think these came out? [Answers in first comment].
In re Backbone Payments, Inc., Serial No. 88279535 (July 6, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Angela Lykos). [Section 2(d) refusal of BACKBONE PAYMENTS for ““Merchant services provider, namely, application service provider featuring application programming interface (API) software for enabling a mobile app to accept payments directly; Merchant services provider, namely, application service provider featuring application programming interface (API) software for integrating ecommerce, payments, and functionality into software platforms” [PAYMENTS disclaimed], in view of the registered mark RETAIL BACKBONE for  “Application service provider (ASP) featuring software used to manage and facilitate the online, electronic commerce and store operations and businesses of retailers” [RETAIL disclaimed]].
In re The Half Baked Bus, LLC, Serial No. 88099422 (July 6, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Mark Lebow) [Section 2(d) refusal of HALF BAKED BUS, in the word-plus-design form shown below, for “Cosmetic preparations for skin care other than tanning accelerators; Cosmetics and cosmetic preparations other than tanning accelerators; Skin cream other than tanning accelerators; Skin moisturizer other than tanning accelerators,” in view of the registered mark HALF BAKED, in standard character form, for “cosmetics, namely, sun tan accelerator lotion”].
In re Jevona Battle, Serial No. 88029949 (June 30, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge David K.Heasley). [Section 2(d) refusal of BATTLE FITNESS for “Personal fitness training, physical fitness and physical exercise instruction, fitness and exercise classes” and for “Nutritional counseling” [FITNESS disclaimed] in view of the registered marks BATTLE FIT & Design for physical fitness training services [FIT disclaimed] and BODY BATTLE FITNESS & Design for personal fitness training services [FITNESS disclaimed].

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog comment: How did you do? Any WYHAs here?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2020.

IP Blog Categories

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

Archives

Previous

Recommended Reading: “A Tale of Two Cups: Acquired Distinctiveness and Survey Evidence Before the TTAB”

Next

TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Section 2(e)(1) Mere Descriptiveness Appeals Come Out?


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

© 2025 Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association. All Rights Reserved | Website design by SafeHouse Web.