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

For the past decade, about 90% of Section 2(d) refusals have been affirmed. 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 considering the marks and the goods/services. Here are three recent Section 2(d) appeals. Let's see how you do. [Answer in first comment].

In re Bayou Pumps & Products Inc., Serial No. 88057994 (January 27, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Martha B. Allard). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark TESLA DISK PUMPS for “pumps for machines" [DISK PUMPS disclaimed], in view of the registered mark TESLA & Design for, inter alia, "electric pumps for machines."]

In re Magnify Sportswear, Serial No. 97494080 (January 30, 2026) (Opinion by Judge Catherine Dugan O'Connor) [Section 2(d) refusal to register the mark MAGNIFY SPORTSWEAR & Design (shown below) for, inter alia, "sports pants," "sports shirts; sports shirts with short sleeves," and "sports caps and hats" [SPORTSWEAR disclaimed] in view of the registered mark MAGNAFIED for, inter alia, "pants," "shirts and short-sleeved shirts," and "baseball caps; baseball caps and hats."]

In re Magdalena Bauza LLC, Serial No. 98593407 (January 30, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christopher C. Larkin). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark LEGAL PEACEMAKERS for “Attorney services; Attorney services, namely, representation of clients in Family Law matters” [LEGAL disclaimed] in view of the registered mark PEACEMAKER "conflict counseling, mediation, and arbitration services."]

Read comments and post your comment here.

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

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.