TTABlog Test: Which of These Three Recent Section 2(d) Appeals Resulted in Reversal(s)?

So far this year, the Board has reversed 7 of the more than 130 Section 2(d) refusals that it has reviewed. Here are three recent Board decisions. At least one of the refusals was reversed. Which one(s)? [Results in first comment].

In re Public Joint Stock Company Acron, Serial No. 79301495 (August 4, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cheryl S. Goodman) [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark ACRON in the sylized form shown below, for "Gardening; landscape gardening; horticulture services; aerial and surface spreading of fertilizers and other agricultural chemicals; plant nursery services," in view of the registered mark ACRON in standard form, for "Construction, namely construction consultancy, construction planning."]

In re Everfresh Beverages Inc., Serial No. 88900190 (August 2, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Mark Lebow). [Section 2(d) refusal of LA CROIX GUAVA SAO PAULO for "sparkling water" [GUAVA disclaimed], in view of the registered mark SAO PAULO STRAWBERRY LEMON for "non-alcoholic beverages containing fruit juices; fruit flavored beverages; fruit-flavored drinks; fruit based beverages; fruit based beverages enhanced with antioxidants; [and] fruit flavored beverages enhanced with antioxidants" [STRAWBERRY LEMON disclaimed].]

In re SBOX Holdings LLC, Serial No. 88886981 (August 10, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cynthia C. Lynch) [Section 2(d) refusals of CAMBIO for "jewelry" and "retail store services featuring jewelry," in view of the registered mark CAMBIARE for "jewelry."]

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog comment: How did you do? See any WYHAs?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2022.