So far this year, the Board has affirmed 130 of the 139 Section 2(d) refusals on appeal. How do you think these three recent appeals came out? [Results in first comment].
In re Hyundai Motor Company,
Serial Nos. 88599435 and 88599451 (August 26, 2022) [not
precedential] (Opinion by Judge Angela Lykos) [Section 2(d) refusal
of the mark HYUNDAI CARPAY for, inter
alia, software and SAAS for "for in-vehicle simple
payments" [CARPAY disclaimed], in view of the registered mark
CARPAY "software as a service (SAAS) services
featuring software for facilitating auto loan payments"].
In re S3 Concrete Technologies, Inc., Serial No. 90156396 (September 1, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Thomas W. Wellington). [Section 2(d) refusal of MEGACLEAN for "cleaner for use on concrete and specialty concrete" in view of the registered mark REJUVENATE MEGACLEAN for "laundry pre-treater and stain/spot remover for fabrics, clothing, and carpet."]
In re Cumberland Farms Inc., Serial No. 88897129 (September 1, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Martha B. Allard) [Section 2(d) refusal of word-and-design mark shown below left [FRESH and TO GO disclaimed] for, inter alia, "ready-to-eat meals comprised primarily of meats" and "coffee," in view of the registered marks FARMHOUSE for "Processed meats, namely pork, beef, and poultry," and the word-plus-design mark shown below left, for "Ground coffee beans; roasted coffee beans."]
Read comments and post your comment 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.
