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

A TTAB Administrative Trademark Judge once said to me 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In re Lahana Pty Ltd., Serial No. 79237803 (April 8, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cynthia C. Lynch). [Section 2(d) refusal of LAHANASWIM for "Clothing namely, bikinis and swimwear" and for "Wholesale and retail store services featuring swimwear," in view of the registered mark LAHANA for jewelry].

In re Joe A. Machiz, Serial No. 88238871 (April 8, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Elizabeth A. Dunn). [Section 2(d) refusal of MONSIEUR & Design for "accent furniture; buffets being furniture; custom furniture; patio furniture; tables," in view of the registered mark MONSIEUR MARBLE for “coasters, not of paper or textile; drinking glasses; flasks; mugs; plates; serving trays; soapstone cubes for chilling whiskey"].

In re Republic Tobacco, L.P., Serial No. 88039351 (April 8, 2020) (Opinion by Judge George C. Pologeorgis). [Section 2(d) refusal of KRYSTAL KLEAR for, inter alia, Cigarette rolling papers, in view of the mark KLEAR registered on the Supplemental Register for "cigarette papers; cigarette rolling papers" and the mark KLEAR & Design registered on the Principal Register for "cigarette papers"].

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog comment: How did you do? Any WYHAs here?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2020.