Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 22 APRIL 2021

TTAB Test: Which Of These Three Section 2(d) Refusal Was/Were Reversed?

Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
Contributor
Wolf Greenfield & Sacks

Wolf Greenfield & Sacks

Wolf, Greenfield is one of the 10 largest law firms in the United States devoted exclusively to...

View firm profile
Explore more from Wolf Greenfield & Sacks

On April 15th, the TTAB the appeals from the three Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion refusals summarized below. At least one of the three refusals was reversed. Let's see how you do in divining the results.

United StatesIntellectual Property

On April 15th, the TTAB the appeals from the three Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion refusals summarized below. At least one of the three refusals was reversed. Let's see how you do in divining the results. [Answer will be found in the first comment.]

1060256a.jpg

In re Golden Coffee LLC, Application Serial No. 88577515 (April 15, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christen M. English). [Section 2(d) refusal of STAY GOLDEN COFFEE CO. in the stylized form shown on the specimen below [COFFEE CO. disclaimed], for "bagged coffee sold to wholesale consumers by the pound" in view of the registered mark STAY GOLDEN for "restaurant services; café services." The applicant argued that the goods and services are directed to different audiences through different channels of trade.]

1060256b.jpg

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.

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.

See more popular content from