ARTICLE
8 August 2017

TTAB Test: Which Of These Two Section 2(D) Refusals Was Reversed?

WG
Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.

Contributor

For nearly a century, Wolf Greenfield has helped clients protect their most valuable intellectual property. The firm offers a full range of IP services, including patent prosecution and litigation; post-grant proceedings, including IPRs; opinions and strategic counseling; licensing; intellectual property audits and due diligence; trademark and copyright prosecution and litigation; and other issues related to the commercialization of intellectual property.
One of the refusals was reversed.
United States Intellectual Property

Here are two Section 2(d) appeals decided two days ago. One of the refusals was reversed. Applying your jurisprudential skills and/or well-honed instincts, how do you think these came out? [Answer in first comment].

In re Mendocino Farms, LLC, Serial No. 86731456 (August 1, 2017) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Karen Kuhlke). [Section 2(d) refusal of EAT HAPPY for restaurant and catering services, in view of the mark shown below, for restaurant services].

In re TOELL Co., Ltd., Serial No. 86888544 (August 1, 2017) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Angela Lykos). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark PURE HAWAIIAN WATER & Design (below left) for "drinking water [PURE HAWAIIAN WATER disclaimed], in view of the registered marks HAWAII WATER & Design (below right) for "purified drinking water" [HAWAII WATER disclaimed] and PURE HAWAIIAN (Supplemental Register), in standard character form, for bottled water].

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.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More