TTABlog Test: Which of These Three Section 2(d) Refusals Was/Were Overturned on Appeal?

The TTAB affirmance rate for Section 2(d) appeals last year fell just under 90%. So far this year it's back to 90%. Here are three recent Board decisions, at least one of which reversed the refusal. How do you think they came out? [Answer in first comment].

In re Castro Diana Mariel, Serial No. 98059004 (April 2, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Michael B. Adlin). [Section 2(d) refusal of MOBBIES for various clothing items "for UTV and dirt bike enthusiasts . . . all the forgoing excluding wetsuits, drysuits, boots, and gloves" in view of the registered mark MOBBY'S for "for “wetsuits, drysuits, boots, and gloves."]

In re MB1 Enterprises, LLC, Serial Nos. 97268667 and 97422929 (April 3, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Martha B. Allard). [Section 2(d) refusals to register the two marks shown below, for clothing and jewelry, in view of the registered mark ONE OF ONE (in standard character form) for "Clothing, namely, shirts, shorts, sweatshirts, hooded sweatshirts, sweatpants, jackets, beanies, hats, jerseys, socks, gloves."]

In re New Rubber Technologies Holdings, Inc, Serial No. 97577543 (April 4, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cheryl S. Goodman). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark shown below, for rubber flooring and floor mats, in view of the registered mark REVIVE for "Vinyl floor coverings; Decorative slip resistant floor covering in sheet form."]

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: How did you do?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.