TTABlog Test: Which of These Three Section 2(d) Refusals Was/Were Reversed?

The TTAB (Tee-Tee-Ā-Bee) recently decided 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 predicting the results. [Answer will be found in the first comment.]

In re Juice Generation, Inc., Serial No. 88536980 (August 25, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Angela Lykos) [Section 2(d) refusal of HI-FIBE for "Non-alcoholic beverages containing fruits and vegetables juices; smoothies; vegetable-fruit juices and smoothies," in view of the registered mark HI FIBE for "Food additives for non-nutritional purposes high in fiber for use as a flavoring, ingredient or filler for use in bread, tortillas, frozen food entrees, muffins, bagels, cheese, juice drinks, soups, cookies and nutritional bars."]

In re UT Fidem Foundation, Serial No. 88592284 (August 24, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cheryl S. Goodman) [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark shown below for "Small group Christian ministry services and providing religious faith counseling services" in view of the registered mark KEEP THE FAITH for "Providing a website featuring information about religious belief systems, and, in particular the Catholic religious belief system."]

In re Real-Time Marketing, Ltd., Serial No. 88590001 (August 24, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Michael B. Adlin) [Section 2(d) refusal of METALHEAD for "air fragrancing preparations for automobiles or vehicles," in view of the registered mark METAL HEAD for "non medicated skin care preparations; skin masks."]

 

Read comments and post your comment here.

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

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2021.

Labels: