Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 07 SEPTEMBER 2022

TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Recent Section 2(d) Appeals Turn Out?

Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
Contributor
Explore more from Wolf Greenfield & Sacks

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].

United StatesIntellectual Property

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].

1228090a.jpg

In re Hyundai Motor Company, Serial Nos. 88599435 and 88599451 (August 26, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Angela Lykos) [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark HYUNDAI CARPAY for, inter alia, software and SAAS for "for in-vehicle simple payments"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"].

1228090b.jpg

In re S3 Concrete Technologies, Inc., Serial No. 90156396 (September 1, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Thomas W. Wellington).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."]

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from