A TTAB judge once said to me that one can predict the outcome of a Section 2(d) case 95% of the time just by looking at the marks and the goods or services. Here are three recent decisions in appeals from Section 2(d) refusals. How do you think these came out? [Answers in first comment].
In re Draion M. Burch DO Inc., Serial No. 888603134 (August 17, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Frances S. Wolfston). [Section 2(d) refusal of MOMENTUM for "Vaginal moisturizers; Personal lubricants" in view of the registered mark MOMENTUM NUTRITION for nutritional supplements [NUTRITION disclaimed].]
In re Altoz, Inc., Serial No. 88625236 (August 17, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge David Mermelstein). [Section 2(d) refusal of TRX for "[z]ero turn riding lawn mowers," in view of the identical mark registered for "[a]ll terrain vehicles and structural parts therefor."]
In re Edward Kwak, Serial No. 88687305 (August 17, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Peter W. Cataldo) [Section 2(d) refusal of KINDSKIN for "Cosmetic skin care services; Health spa services, namely, cosmetic body care services; Medical spa services, namely, minimally and non-invasive cosmetic and body fitness therapies," in view of the registered mark KIND HEALTH GROUP for "Medical spa services, namely, minimally and non-invasive cosmetic and body fitness therapies."]
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog comment: How did you do? Any WYHAs 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.
