As of one week ago, the Board had considered 29 appeals from Section 2(d) refusals this year and affirmed every one of them. Here are the latest four decsions. Has the streak been broken? How do you think they turned out? [Answers in first comment].
In re Gruma Corporation, Serial No. 88863832 (February 11, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Michael B. Adlin). [Section 2(d) refusal of MISSION PLANITAS for tostadas [PLANITAS disclaimed] in view of the registered mark PLANITAS, in standard character and stylized form, for tortillas.]
In re Moxley Homes, LLC, Serial Nos. 88882171 and 88882239 (February 11, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cynthia C. Lynch). [Section 2(d) refusal of MOXLEY HOMES, in standard character and design form [HOMES disclaimed], for real estate development and construction-related services, in view of the registered mark MOXLEY TEAM for "real estate agency services" [TEAM disclaimed].]
In re OMT Belforte S.R.L., Serial No. 79255285 (February 8, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Thomas W. Wellington). (Section 2(d) refusal of VICTORIA ARDUINO & Design for, inter alia, electric coffee grinders, power-operated coffee grinders, and electric blenders and mixers, in view of the registered mark VICTORIA for ""electric coffee grinders; power-operated coffee grinders; food processors, electric; electric food blenders."
In re Hyundai Motor Company, Serial No. 88599443 (February 16, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Jonathan Hudis). [Section 2(d) refusal of HYUNDAI CARPAY for payment processing services, in view of the registered mark CARPAY for "software as a service (SAAS) services featuring software for facilitating auto loan payments."]
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog comment: How did you do? See any WYHAs?
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.
