TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Recent Section 2(d) Appeals Turn Out?

Here are three recent appeals from Section 2(d) refusals. As previously mentioned, a former TTAB judge once told 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/services. How do you think theses three cases came out? [Results in first comment].

In re Enel S.p.A., Serial No. 79283272 (February 13, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Marc A. Bergsman) [Section 2(d) refusal of JUICEPASS for "remote payment services; issuance of prepaid cards and tokens of value," in view of the registered mark JUICE for, inter alia, issuing prepaid debit cards and credit cards.]

In re Mushroom Revival LLC, Serial No. 88419682 (February 8, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christopher Larkin). [Section 2(d) refusal of MUSHROOM REVIVAL for "mushroom based dietary supplements in the form of capsules, liquid, powder" [MUSHROOM disclaimed] in view of the registered mark REVIVAL. "nutritional and dietary supplements which contain vitamins, minerals and herbs; vitamin and mineral preparations for use as ingredients in the food industry."]

In re GFactor Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Gfactor Films, Serial No. 90159334 (February 2, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Jonathan Hudis) [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark MAKE YOUR PASSION YOUR PAYCHECK for books and educational services "in the field of passion, self-awareness, EQ-emotional intelligence, student, adolescent, adult and career success," in view of the registered mark MAKE YOUR PASSION YOUR PROFESSION for "[e]ducational services, namely, providing courses of instruction at the undergraduate and professional level."]

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog comment: How did you do?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2023.