ARTICLE
21 December 2021

TTABlog Test: Three Recent Section 2(d) Inter Partes Cases - How Did They Come Out?

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.
Here are three recent TTAB decisions in Section 2(d) inter partes proceedings. Not knowing all the facts, see if you can guess how they came out.
United States Intellectual Property

Here are three recent TTAB decisions in Section 2(d) inter partes proceedings. Not knowing all the facts, see if you can guess how they came out. At least one of the three was dismissed or denied. Answer(s) in the first comment.

1143252a.jpg

Trusted Debit, LLC v. My Canna PayG Financial, Opposition No. 92073715 (December 9, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Angela Lykos). [Petition for cancellation of a registration for the mark MY CANNA PAY & Design  for payroll services, on the ground of likelihood of confusion with the registered mark CAN PAY & Design for electronic commerce payment services].

1143252b.jpg

The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia v. Arkansas Children's, Inc., Opposition No. 91242802 (December 14, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christen M. English).[Section 2(d) opposition to registration of ARKANSAS CHILDREN'S & Design for "Charitable fund raising services, namely, raising funds to support pediatric care, research, education and prevention programs" [ARKANSAS CHILDREN'S disclaimed], in view of the registered marks CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA & Design for "charitable fundraising services" [CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL disclaimed] and CH & Design for hospital services]. 

1143252c.jpg

1143252d.jpg

Lagunitas Brewing Company v. Deanna Fulton and Kunoor Chopra, Opposition No. 91254430 (December 14, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Jonathan Hudis). [Section 2(d) opposition to registration of LAGUNATIC for various goods in four classes, including beer glasses, towels, clothing, and non-alcoholic beer, in view of the registered mark LAGUNITAS for ale.]

1143252e.jpg

Read comments and post your commenthere.

The TTABlog

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