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

A now-retired TTAB judge once said to me that one can predict the outcome of a Section 2(d) appeal 95% of the time by looking at just the marks and the goods/services. Here are three appeals decided recently. Let's see how you do. [Answers in first comment].

In re Rebel Athletic Inc., Serial No. 98676029 (September 28, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Angela Lykos). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark REBEL SUPER NOVA for “Gemstones; Artificial gemstones; Glass [jewelry]; Imitation stones for making jewelry all for use with cheer and dance apparel and equipment," in view of the registered mark SUPERNOVA MOISSANITE for “Gemstones” [(MOISSANITE disclaimed]].

In re Preserve Property Co., Serial No. 99048401 (September 30, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cheryl S. Goodman). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark PRESERVE PROPERTY CO. for “Rental of vacation accommodation" [PROPERTY CO. disclaimed], in view of the registered mark THE PRESERVE RESORT for “real estate services, namely, rental of vacation property” [RESORT disclaimed].]

In re RZT LLC, Serial No. 98913556 (October 2, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Thomas L. Casagrande). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark DIRDYBIRD for "Eyewear, namely, sunglasses, sports and safety glasses and goggles," in view of the registered mark DIRTYBIRD for "sunglasses."]

Read comments and post your comment here.

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

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.