A TTAB judge once told me that you can predict the outcome of a Section 2(d) case 95% of the time by just looking at the goods/services and the marks. I kid you not! Let's see how you do with the three cases summarized below. Answer(s) in the first comment.
MG Financial, LLC v. Kiran Sureshbhai Shah, Oppositions Nos. 91250240 and 91250316 (November 15, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christen M. English). [Section 2(d) oppositions to registration of OLD HARBOR (stylized) for "tea" in view of the standard form mark OLD HARBOR registered for "coffee."]
Kona USA, Inc. v. Global Esprit Inc., Opposition No. 91244876 (November 22, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christopher Larkin).[Section 2(d) opposition to KONA81 (Stylized) for various clothing items, including sport shirts, sports jerseys, and sports pants, in view of the registered mark KONA for bicycles and the common law mark KONA for jerseys for cycling, pants for cycling, and shirts for cycling.]
Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. PWT A/S, Opposition No. 91231624 (November 29, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Marc A. Bergsman). [Section 2(d) opposition to registration of the design mark shown below left, for various goods in classes 3 (perfume and cosmetics), 9 (sunglasses), 18 (wallets and bags), 25 (clothing), and 35 (wholesale and retail store services), in view of the design mark shown below right, for "time pieces of all kinds and parts thereof" and "retail store services featuring watches, timepieces, clocks and jewelry" (class 35).]
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog comment: How did you do?
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.
