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

January 21, 2021January 25, 2021| in The TTABlog| by John L. Welch
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. One of the refusals was reversed. Which one? [Answer in first comment].

In re Asept Air, Inc. , Serial No. 88265476 (January 6, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Angela Lykos). [Section 2(d) refusal of ASEPT-AIR for “Air purification machinery units for residential, commercial and industrial use and accessories, namely, filters for air purification” in view of the registered mark shown below for “UV light disinfection systems comprised primarily of ultraviolet lamps for use in medical and healthcare facilities; Air purifiers for commercial and domestic use.”]

In re Shenzhen Airsmart Technology Co., Ltd., Serial No. 87427315 (January 14, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Albert C. Zervas). [Section 2(d) refusal of MUZEN in stylized form (below left) for “Acoustic membranes; Blank CD-ROMs for sound or video recording; Cabinets for loudspeakers; Compact disc players; Headphones; Horns for loudspeakers; Juke boxes for computers; Personal stereos; Portable media players; Sound transmitting apparatus,” in view of the registered mark MUSES & Design (below right) for “Integrated circuits; operational amplifiers; 3-D surround-sound processors; electronic circuits; audio amplifiers; audio circuit boards; computer accelerator boards; and computer expansion boards.” [N.B. “muzen” is Dutch for “muse”]].

In re Anastasia Confections, Inc., Serial No. 87588050 (January 14, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Peter W. Cataldo). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark shown below for “coconut and chocolate confections; cookies; chocolates; chocolate snacks; baked goods, namely, cookies, chocolate-based bakery goods, and coconut-based bakery goods” in view of the registered mark THE TASTE OF PARADISE for “processed macadamia nuts.”]

Read comments and post your comment here.

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

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2021.

IP Blog Categories

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

Archives

Previous

TTAB Affirms Geographical Descriptiveness Refusal of RENOAIR for Air Transport Services: Distinctiveness for Model Airplanes Not Transferable

Next

TTABlog Test: Is COMPOSTA (Italian) Merely Descriptive of Compostable Containers?


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.