Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 30 SEPTEMBER 2022

TTABlog Test: (No WYHAs Here!) How Did These Three Recent Section 2(d) Appeals Turn Out?

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

So far this year, the Board has affirmed more than 90% of the Section 2(d) refusals it has reviewed on appeal. Here are three recent ones. No hints this time. How do you think they came out?

United StatesIntellectual Property

So far this year, the Board has affirmed more than 90% of the Section 2(d) refusals it has reviewed on appeal. Here are three recent ones. No hints this time. How do you think they came out? [Results in first comment].

In re Aleksander Chulyakov, Serial No. 90032236 (September 28, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christopher Larkin) [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark EVERBLAK for "jewelry, namely, wedding rings and wedding bands" in view of the registered mark FOREVER BLACK for "clothing, namely, pants, jeans, skirts, shorts, dresses, jackets, coats and t-shirts" [BLACK disclaimed].]

1235486a.jpg

In re White Elephant Enterprises, Inc., Serial Nos. 88662792 (September 26, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Thomas W. Wellington) [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark WHITE ELEPHANT SALOON for restaurant and bar services ("SALOON" disclaimed) in view of the registered mark WHITE ELEPHANT for wine.]

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