The TTAB recently decided the appeals from the three Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion refusals. At least one of the refusals was reversed. Which one(s)? [Answer will be found in the first comment.]


In re Ubican Global Licensing, LLC, Application Serial No. 88731594 (February 24, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Marc A. Bergsman). [Section 2(d) refusal of HEALIX for "herbs for smoking, none of the hemp derived ingredients of which contain a delta-9 tetrahyrocannabinol (THC) concentration of more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis," in view of the registered mark HELIX & Design for "smoking pipes."]


In re The Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Firm, LLP, Serial No. 87843998 (February 26, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Michael B. Adlin). [Section 2(d) Refusal of JACOB FUCHSBERG LAW FIRM & Design in view of the registered marks TOURO LAW TOURO COLLEGE JACOB D. FUCHSBERG LAW CENTER & Design, all for legal services].



In re Conmed Corporation, Application Serial No. 88355889 (March 2, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Robert H. Coggins). [Section 2(d) refusal of MIMIX for "medical cutting devices, namely, arthroscopic shavers and burs for small joints" in view of the identical mark registered for "bone implants, namely, bone replacement material composed of a synthetic powder which is mixed with a solution to form a paste, used for the surgical correction of cranial defects."]


Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog comment: How did you do? See any WYHAs here?

The TTABlog

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.