Decisions · 86434029
In re Construction Research & Technology GmbH
Serial No. 86434029 · Decided 2017-05-17 · Other
What happened
The Board affirmed the refusal to register SL - - - for joint sealant compounds because the trailing dashes stand in for up to three changing digits, so the application really tried to claim more than a thousand different possible marks instead of the single mark an application is allowed to cover.
The marks
Applicant
SL - - -
"sealant compounds for joints" in International Class 17
Why this decision is significant
Companion application decided in the same precedential consolidated opinion as NP - - - with identical phantom-mark analysis. Shared rating across the cluster.
Research significance is Trademark Valet's editorial rating of how useful a decision is to practitioners. It is not a statement of precedential weight — that is the separate Precedential field, which comes from the Board.
Related decisions
In re Construction Research & Technology GmbH
The Board affirmed the refusal to register NP - - - for joint sealant compounds because the trailing dashes stand in for up to three changing digits, so the application really tried to…
86433989 · 2017-05-17 · NP - - -
In re Tapco International Corporation
The Board refused Tapco’s application to register KLEER ADHESIVES for PVC construction adhesives that dry opaque or color-matched, finding the name deceptive because KLEER sounds like…
86075950 · 2017-04-28 · KLEER ADHESIVES
In re Tapco International Corporation
The Board let Tapco’s application for KLEER MOULDINGS move forward for cellular PVC trim and mouldings, finding that even though KLEER sounds like “clear,” there was no evidence buyers…
86078755 · 2017-04-28 · KLEER MOULDINGS
In re Tapco International Corporation
The Board let Tapco’s application for KLEER TRIMBOARD move forward for cellular PVC lumber and exterior trim (fascia, soffits, corner boards and the like), finding that even though KLEER…
86079474 · 2017-04-28 · KLEER TRIMBOARD
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 — Generated from database rows without re-reading the opinion.
General information about how trademark law works. It is not legal advice about your situation, and reading it does not make anyone your lawyer.