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

Here are three recent TTAB decisions in Section 2(d) appeals. 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In re Wilson Carter, Serial No. 98290246 (April 1, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Mark A. Thurmon). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark CLUTCH for "Batteries; Battery chargers for mobile phones; Battery chargers for use with electronics; Mobile telephone batteries" in view of the registered mark CLUTCH OUTDOORS for, inter alia, "solar-powered battery chargers for charging mobile and handheld electronic devices" [OUTDOORS disclaimed].

In re SC Bucin Mob SRL, Serial No. 79403753 (April 6, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Mark A. Thurmon) [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark shown below, for "Skadi-style non-metallic prefabricated houses; laminated wood carpentry, namely, laminated wooden exterior doors, wooden shutters" [WOOD disclaimed] in view of the registered mark INFINITY for "windows and plastic window frames."]

In re Halo Machine, Serial No. 98672491 (April 6, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Lawrence T. Stanley, Jr.). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark HALO MACHINE for, inter alia, "custom additive manufacturing of firearm display stands and wristwatch display stands for others" [MACHINE disclaimed] in view of the registered mark HALO for, inter alia, "additive manufacturing for others," 'custom additive manufacturing," and "custom additive manufacturing for others."]

Read comments and post your comment here.

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

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.