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

The Board decided three Section 2(d) appeals on Tuesday, February 23rd. Remembering that a TTAB Judge (now retired) once said 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, how do you think these came out? [Answer in first comment].

In re Tulster, LLC, Serial No. 98092120 (February 23, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Catherine Dugan O'Connor). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark ECHO for “carriers adapted for firearm accessories in the nature of handgun magazines,” in view of the identical mark registered for "noise suppressors for guns; silencers for firearms."]

San Ignacio University Inc., Serial No. 98286205 (February 23, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Robert Lavache) [Section 2(d) refusal to register the mark shown below, for "Educating at university or colleges" [UNIVERSITY disclaimed] in view of the registered mark SIU for "Educational Services in the nature of courses and degree programs at the University level."]

In re Bushwood Productions, Inc., Serial No. 98492454 (February 23, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge David K. Heasley). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark BREAKFAST BALLER for “distilled spirits” in view of the registered mark BREAKFAST BALL BLOODY MARY for “alcoholic beverages, except beer" [BLOODY MARY disclaimed].]

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: How did you do? See any WYHA?s ? BTW: SIU = Southern Illinois University in Carbondale, Illinois. Two of my brothers matriculated there.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.