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

A TTAB 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/services. Here are the three such appeals recently decided by the TTAB. How do you think these three came out? No hints this time. [Answers in first comment.]

In re TransAd, Inc., Serial No. 90877894 (April 25, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Mark A. Thurmon). [Section 2(d) refusal of IN-AD LANDING PAGE for, inter alia, "Advertising and commercial information services, via the internet; Advertising on the Internet for others," in view of the registered mark LANDINGPAGE for, inter alia, "dissemination of advertising for others via a global computer information network."]

In re Pueblos, Inc., Serial No. 90469285 (April 30, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge David K. Heasley). [Section 2(d) refusal to register PUEBLOS MEXICAN CUISINE for "restaurant services; restaurant and bar services, including restaurant carryout services" [MEXICAN CUISINE disclaimed], in view of the registered mark MI PUEBLO MEXICAN GRILL for restaurant services [MEXICAN GRILL disclaimed].

In re Arkoss Group Corp., Serial No. 97475190 (April 30, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Melanye K. Johnson). [Section 2(d) refusal to register the mark shown immediately below, for "Beer; Beer, ale and lager; Beer, ale, lager, stout and porter," in view of the registered mark RON SIBONEY for "Alcoholic beverages except beers; Distilled Spirits; Rum; Spirits and liqueurs."]

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog comment: How did you do? See any non-WYHA?s

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2024.