So far this year, the Board has affirmed 104 of the 108 Section 2(d) appeals that it has decided. How do you think these three came out? [Results in first comment].
In re Elektromotive Australia Pty Ltd., Serial No. 90025392 (July 6, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christopher Larkin) [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark shown below for "electric bicycles; electric motorcycles" [ELECTRIC BIKES disclaimed], in view of the registered mark STEALTH for "electronically motorized skateboards" and "electric motor vehicles, namely, all-terrain vehicles."]
In re Chattanooga Bakery, Inc., Serial No. 90287400 (July 7, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cheryl S. Goodman). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark shown below for "bakery goods, namely, marshmallow sandwiches" [MARSHMALLOW and PIE disclaimed], in view of the registered mark MELLOW PIE for "chocolates and chocolate based ready to eat candies and marshmallow snacks excluding brownies." [PIE disclaimed]].
In re Laramie Dorris, Serial No. 88901984 (July 12, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Thomas W. Wellington) [Section 2(d) refusal of JUST GYDDIUP for "hats; shirts" in view of the registered mark GiddyUp Boots (in standard characters) and the word-plus-design mark shown below, for "boots" [BOOTS disclaimed].
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.
