Here are three recent appeals from Section 2(d) refusals. As previously mentioned, a former TTAB judge once told me that one can predict the outcome of a Section 2(d) case 95% of the time just by looking at the marks and the goods/services. How do you think theses three cases came out? [Results in first comment].
In re eduConsulting Firm, Serial No. 90196048 (January 12, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Michael B. Adlin) [Section 2(d) refusal of EDUCRATE for, inter alia, subscription-based order fulfillment services in the field of educational items and resources for teachers, principals, instructional coaches, and other educators, in view of the registered mark MYEDUCRATE for "subscription based order fulfillment services in the field of educational items and resources."]
In re RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., Serial Nos. 88662587 and 88822603 (January 18, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Karen Kuhlke) [Section 2(d) refusal of VUSE CHARGE BEYOND for in view of the registered mark BEYOND for overlapping goods and services, namely, retail store services for electronic cigarettes, and electronic cigarettes.]
In re OptConnect Management, LLC, Serial Nos.
88458583, 88458653, and 88458681 (January 19, 2023) [not
precedential] (Opinion by Judge Marc A. Bergsman). [Section 2(d)
refusal of OPTCONNECT EMA,
OPTCONNECT, and OPTCONNECT MANAGED
WIRELESS SOLUTIONS and design for goods and services used
to connect devices to the internet of things, in view of the
registered mark OPCONNECT for "interactive computer kiosks
comprising computers, computer hardware, computer peripherals, and
computer operating software, for use in digital advertising and
electric vehicle charging."]
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.
