So far this year, the Board has affirmed more than 90% of the Section 2(d) refusals it has reviewed on appeal. Here are three recent ones. No hints this time. How do you think they came out? [Results in first comment].

In re Aleksander Chulyakov, Serial No. 90032236 (September 28, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christopher Larkin) [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark EVERBLAK for "jewelry, namely, wedding rings and wedding bands" in view of the registered mark FOREVER BLACK for "clothing, namely, pants, jeans, skirts, shorts, dresses, jackets, coats and t-shirts" [BLACK disclaimed].]

1235486a.jpg

In re White Elephant Enterprises, Inc., Serial Nos. 88662792 (September 26, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Thomas W. Wellington) [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark WHITE ELEPHANT SALOON for restaurant and bar services ("SALOON" disclaimed) in view of the registered mark WHITE ELEPHANT for wine.]

1235486b.jpg

In re Armature Works (Hotel) TRS, LLC, Serial No. 90091318 (September 21, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cindy B. Greenbaum). [Section 2(d) refusal of THE MORROW HOTEL for hotel services, in view of the registered mark MORROW for "Bed sheets; Towels; Bed blankets."]

1235486c.jpg

Comment

At 6:47 AM, John L. Welch said...

All three were affirmed.

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.