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 One of These Three Section 2(d) Refusals Was Reversed?

January 27, 2020February 4, 2020| in The TTABlog| by John L. Welch
A (currently serving) TTAB Administrative Trademark Judge once said to me that one can predict the outcome of a Section 2(d) appeal 95% of the time just by looking at the marks and the involved goods or services. Here are three recent decisions in appeals from Section 2(d) refusals. One refusal was reversed? How do you think these came out? [Answers in first comment].

In re Hidive LLC, Serial No. 87819793 (January 24, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christen M. English). [Section 2(d) refusal of DUBCAST for “Transmission and delivery of television programs via the internet; Transmission of information in the audiovisual field; Electronic transmission and streaming of digital media content for others via global and local computer networks; Video broadcasting and transmission services via the Internet, featuring films and movies; Video-on-demand transmission services; Video-on-demand transmission services via the Internet,” in view of the registered mark DUBLAB (in standard form) for “broadcasting programs via a global computer network”].

In re Marathon Tours, Inc., Serial No. 86086458 (January 23, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Lorelei Ritchie) [Section 2(d) refusal of ANTARCTICA MARATHON for “Travel services, namely, organizing and arranging travel, travel tours, excursions, and sightseeing travel tours; providing travel guide and travel information services; making transport reservation,” and “Travel services, namely, making hotel reservations for others,” in view of the registered mark ANTARCTIC ICE MARATHON & 100K and Design (shown below) for “Athletic and sports event services, namely, arranging, organizing, operating and conducting marathon races” [ANTARCTIC ICE MARATHON & 100K” and the geographic representation of Antarctica disclaimed].

In re KC Investment Inc., Serial No. 87897588 (January 16, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Deputy Chief Judge Mark A. Thurmon).[Section 2(d) refusal of DADDY GANG for various clothing items, in view of the registered mark GOOD DAD GANG for overlapping clothing items].

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

Two New Judges Appointed to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Next

Griff Thomas Reports On “Drain Cap” TTAB Oral Hearing


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 Arclight Digital.