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

What is the Likelihood of TTAB Affirmance of a Section 2(d) Refusal?

January 23, 2018January 24, 2018| in The TTABlog| by John L. Welch

As I do every year since Hector was a pup, I have reviewed the TTAB’s FOIA page in an attempt to estimate the percentage of Section 2(d) likelihood-of-confusion refusals that were affirmed by the Board during the last calendar year (2017). I counted 239 Section 2(d) refusals, of which 209 were affirmed and 30 reversed. That’s an affirmance rate of about 87.4%. So the odds are almost 9 out of 10 for affirmance. [Slightly lower than last year’s 91% rate, but then this is not an exact science].

Only one of the Section 2(d) decisions was precedential: In re USA Warriors Ice Hockey Program, Inc., 122 USPQ2d 1790 (TTAB 2017) (Opinion by Judge Bergsman). In USA Warriors, The Board affirmed a Section 2(d) refusal of the mark shown below left, for “arranging and conducting ice hockey programs for injured and disabled members and veterans,” finding it confusable with the mark shown below right, for entertainment and association services related to hockey. Applicant did not dispute that the marks are similar and the services related. Instead it contended that the registrant had consented to registration of the applied-for mark, and that under In re Strategic Partners, Inc., 102 USPQ2d 1397 (TTAB 2012), the 13th du Pont factor should be considered in light of applicant’s ownership of a registration for a slightly different color logo for the same services. Consent: Applicant pointed to the display of its registered mark on opposer’s website; however, there was no written consent agreement, and the Board will not infer that the registrant consented to registration based on its apparent knowledge of the previously-registered, slightly different mark. 13th du Pont Factor: In Strategic Partners the Board reversed a Section 2(d) refusal based on applicant’s ownership of a substantially similar mark that had co-existed with the cited registered mark for more than five years. Here, however, the involved marks had co-existed for less than five years, and applicant’s registration is still subject to possible cancellation under Section 2(d). This three-and-one-half year co-existence was a relevant consideration, but it did not outweigh the other du Pont factors

IP Blog Categories

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

Archives

Previous

TTAB Grants Summary Judgment Re Bogus Fraud Counterclaim

Next

In 2017, How Often Did the TTAB Affirm Section 2(e)(1) Mere Descriptiveness Refusals?


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.