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

A 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. Here are three recent appeals from Section 2(d) refusals. How do you think these came out? Answers will be found in the first comment. [No hints this time].

In re Puma SE, Serial No. 90600590 (August 29, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christopher C. Larkin). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark PWRSHAPE for "Clothing, namely, pants, skirts” and “Clothing, namely, pullovers, jackets, shirts, T-shirts, sweaters, and coats," in view of the registered mark POWERSHAPE for "bras."

In re Tequila Cuervo, S.A. de C.V., Serial No. 90741831 (August 31, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Jonathan Hudis) [Section 2(d) refusal of 100 PUNTOS for "[n]on-alcoholic cocktail mixes" and for "[a]lcoholic beverages except beer; alcoholic cocktail mixes; distilled blue agave liquor," in view of the registered mark 100 POINTS for "[d]rinking glasses, decanters."]

In re The Trustee of the Markeeta E. Maki Revocable Living Trust, Serial Nos. 907383412 (August 31, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Marc A. Bergsman) [Section 2(d) refusal of ICE CREAM BANDITS & Design for "milk shakes; milk beverages, milk predominating," and for "chocolate, ice cream" [ICE CREAM disclaimed] in view of the registered mark SWEET BANDITS for "candy; sweets" [SWEETS disclaimed].

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog comment: Actually, if you guess "affirmed," you'll be right about 90% of the time.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2023.