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

It has been said that one can predict the outcome of a Section 2(d) appeal 95% of the time just by looking at the marks and the involved goods or services! Here are three recent decisions in appeals from Section 2(d) refusals. One refusal was reversed. How do you think these came out? [Answers in first comment].

In Sensi Vigne & Vini SRL , Serial No. 79201501 (February 21, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christen M. English). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark shown immediately below, for "wines; sparkling wines" in light of the registered mark DULCE VIDA for "distilled spirits"].

In re Cracker Box Fireworks, LLC, Serial No. 88276676 (February 19, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Marc A. Bergsman). [Section 2(d) refusal of THE CRACKER BOX CARAMEL POP for "popcorn; caramel popcorn" [CARAMEL disclaimed], in view of the registered mark KARAMEL POP for "popcorn" [The English translation of "KARAMEL" is "CARAMEL"].

In re Max Mara Fashion Group S.r.l, Serial No. 87786944 (February 12, 2020) (Opinion by Judge Marc A. Bergsman). [Section 2(d) refusal of of MAXMARA THE CUBE & Design for various clothing items "related to a customizable coat concept featuring coats and coat components that can be primarily transported within a portable cube carrier," in view of the registered mark THE CUBE for retail store services featuring clothing].

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog comment: How did you do? Any WYHAs here? BTW, I'm from Chicago. I say "carmel," as in the high school, Mt. Carmel.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2020.