Some ten years ago, a TTAB judge 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 decisions issued last week in appeals from Section 2(d) refusals. At least one refusal was reversed. Let's see how you do. [Answers in first comment].
In re Lit Hookah LLC, Serial No. 87904592
(March 24, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christopher
Larkin). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark shown immediately below,
for "glass hookahs, including whole hookahs and hookah parts
such as the bowl, down-stem and hoses to be utilized to smoke
tobacco and other herbal products without electronic
components," in view of the registered mark LIT HOOKAH
LOUNGE & BAR for "hookah lounge services"
[HOOKAH LOUNGE & BAR disclaimed].
In re Tintoria Piana U.S., Inc., Serial
No. 87776775 (March 25, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge
Cheryl S. Goodman). [Section 2(d) refusal to register PIANA
HYDRO for "textile fibers" in view of the
registered marks LORA PIANA and formatives thereof
for textiles, fabrics, and yarns].
In re LEMA, Serial No. 87892342 (March 26, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Angela Lykos). [Section 2(d) refusal of DADA CHAPEL for "Beer, ale, lager, stout and porter" and for "Spirits and liqueurs," in view of the registered mark shown immediately below, for "wines"].
Read comments and post your comment here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.