Which of These Three Section 2(d) Refusals Was/Were Reversed?

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In re Greg Gillespie, Serial No. 97840298 (October 29, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Thomas L. Casagrande). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark DRAGONSLAYER, in standard form, for "Role playing game equipment in the nature of downloadable game book manuals," and "Role playing game equipment in the nature of printed game book manuals," in view of the registered mark shown below, for "Board games and equipment sold as a unit for playing boardgames."]

In re MVE Biological Solutions US, LLC, Serial No. 97930469 (October 30, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Elizabeth K. Brock). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark CRYOCUBE for “Refrigerated shipping container” in view of the identical mark registered for "Freezers and refrigerators used in scientific laboratories."]

In re Biogena GmbH & Co KG, Serial No. 79396760 (October 30, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Jennifer L. Elgin). [Section 2(d) refusal to register the mark shown immediately below, for, inter alia, dietary and nutritional supplements for sports and increased performance for medical purposes, in view of the registered mark JUPITER for "Dietary supplements; dietary supplemental drinks in the nature of vitamin and mineral beverages."]

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: How did you do? See any WYHA?s ?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.