Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 08 AUGUST 2017

TTAB Test: Which Of These Two Section 2(D) Refusals Was 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

One of the refusals was reversed.

United StatesIntellectual Property

Here are two Section 2(d) appeals decided two days ago. One of the refusals was reversed. Applying your jurisprudential skills and/or well-honed instincts, how do you think these came out? [Answer in first comment].

In re Mendocino Farms, LLC, Serial No. 86731456 (August 1, 2017) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Karen Kuhlke). [Section 2(d) refusal of EAT HAPPY for restaurant and catering services, in view of the mark shown below, for restaurant services].

In re TOELL Co., Ltd., Serial No. 86888544 (August 1, 2017) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Angela Lykos). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark PURE HAWAIIAN WATER & Design (below left) for "drinking water [PURE HAWAIIAN WATER disclaimed], in view of the registered marks HAWAII WATER & Design (below right) for "purified drinking water" [HAWAII WATER disclaimed] and PURE HAWAIIAN (Supplemental Register), in standard character form, for bottled water].

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