So far this year, the TTAB has affirmed 177 of the 190 Section 2(d) refusals on appeal (about 93%). Here are three decisions that came down recently. How do you think they came out? [Results in first comment].
In re Matosantos Commercial Corporation, Serial No. 88718607 (December 6, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Robert H. Coggins) [Section 2(d) refusal of FRUIT & VEGGIE BLENDERS, in the stylized form shown below, for "Frozen fruits; Frozen vegetables," in view of the registered mark FRESH BLENDERS for "Fresh fruit and vegetables" [FRESH disclaimed]].
In re Maesa LLC, Serial No. 88901053 (December 8, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cynthia C. Lynch) [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark the mark GOODBATHS in stylized form (first below) for "Body cream; Body lotion; Body scrub; Body wash; Fragrances; Non-medicated soaps for the body; Non-medicated soaps for the hands; Non-medicated skin care preparation, namely, body mist," finding confusion likely with the registered mark GOODBATH in stylized form (second below) for "Bath linen, except clothing; Textile material, namely, towels, table napkins; Bed linen; Towels of textile; shower curtains of textile or plastic."
In re Cxffeeblack LLC, Serial No. 90109203 (December 12, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Marc A. Bergsman) [Section 2(d) refusal of GUJI MANE for "Coffee; Coffee beans; Ground coffee beans; Roasted coffee beans; Unroasted coffee" in view of the registered mark GUJI for "coffee."]
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.
