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

A TTAB judge once said to me that one can predict the outcome of a Section 2(d) case 95% of the time just by looking at the marks and the goods or services. Here are three recent decisions in appeals from Section 2(d) refusals. At least one of the refusals was reversed. How do you think these came out? [Answers in first comment].

In re Kid Brooklyn, Inc., Serial Nos. 87654825, 87654829, and 87664076 (August 13, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Marc A. Bergsman). [Section 2(d) refusals of KID BROOKLYN, (in standard characters and design form) and KID BROOKLYN NYC, in view of the registered mark KID BREUKELEN & Design, all for t-shirts].

In re Marta Antonia Rivera Diaz, Serial Nos. 88195159 and 88195194 (August 14, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Angela Lykos) [Section 2(d) refusals of SENSE & EDIBILITY, in standard character and design form, for "providing a website in the field of cooking," in view of the registered mark EDIBILITY for "catering services, food preparation services"].

In re Superdraft, Inc., Serial No. 88255895 (August 14, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christopher Larkin). [Section 2(d) refusal of SD SUPERDRAFT & Design (below left) for "Apparel, namely, shirts, hats, sweatshirts, and jerseys," in view of the registered mark THE POST SUPERDRAFT & Design, shown below right, for "clothing, namely t-shirts"].

Read comments and post your comment here.

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

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2020.