Decisions · 85179263
In re Nieves & Nieves LLC
85179263 · Decided 2015-01-30
What happened
Both Section 2(a) and Section 2(c) refusals affirmed for ROYAL KATE for fashion/luxury goods. Board applied four-part Section 2(a) false suggestion test and found all prongs satisfied: ROYAL KATE is close approximation of Kate Middleton’s identity based on extensive media use of the term to refer to her; mark points uniquely to Kate Middleton given her fame as fashion trendsetter and the fashion nature of the goods; Kate Middleton is not connected with applicant; and her fame is sufficient that a connection would be presumed. Board made explicit what was implicit in prior decisions: first prong does not require person to have actually used the name themselves. For Section 2(c), Board applied PRINCE CHARLES precedent — title + first name identifies specific well-known living individual. Board also addressed evidentiary issues including admissibility of foreign publications and evidence attached to briefs.
Related decisions
In re Keep A Breast Foundation
Three of four refusal grounds affirmed for 3D breast/torso cast trade dress for breast cancer awareness services. (1) All specimens failed — original showed mark but no services; first…
85316199 · 2017-08-17
In re Aloe Bioscience, LLC
Genericness refusal REVERSED for ALOE BIOSCIENCE for aloe-containing dietary supplements, dermatologicals, pharmaceuticals, mouth/teeth preparations, and cosmeceuticals. Two-step H. Marvin…
85531266 · 2015-05-13
In re Meridian Rack & Pinion DBA buyautoparts.com
Genericness refusal affirmed for BUYAUTOPARTS.COM for on-line retail store services featuring auto parts. Applied H. Marvin Ginn two-step test. (1) Genus: on-line retail store services…
85504151 · 2015-04-21
In re Datapipe, Inc.
Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusal affirmed for YOUR CLOUD (standard characters) for cloud computing and data storage services. Board analyzed each component: ‘Cloud’ is common…
85173828 · 2014-07-07
The original record
Read the opinion and every filing on the Board's own docket. The summary above is our paraphrase, not a quotation from the opinion. The opinion is the authority.
Who checked this
Not yet reviewed by an attorney. This summary is generated from coded data, and it says so until a lawyer has read it.
Provenance — Written from the opinion; research-significance tier confirmed.
General information about how trademark law works. It is not legal advice about your situation, and reading it does not make anyone your lawyer.