TTABlog Test: How Did these Three Section 2(d) Appeals Come Out?

A TTAB judge once said to me that one can predict the outcome of a Section 2(d) case 95% of the time just by looking at the marks and the goods or services. Here are three recent decisions in appeals from Section 2(d) refusals. No hints this time. How do you think these came out? [Answers in first comment].

In re 412 Public House, LLC, Serial No. 88205268 (August 19, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Jonathan Hudis). [Section 2(d) refusal of 412 PUBLIC HOUSE for "Bar services; Restaurant services" [PUBLIC HOUSE disclaimed], in view the registered mark 412 BBQ for, inter alia, restaurant and bar services [BBQ disclaimed].

In re Minted, LLC, Serial No. 88031150 (August 19, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cindy B. Greenbaum) [Section 2(d) refusal of PIPPA for "Paper products, namely, stationery, envelopes, printed invitations, announcement cards, note cards, and greeting cards," in view of the registered mark PIPPA & CO. for "Retail store services in the field of party supplies" [& CO. disclaimed].

In re Queendom Aesthetics, LLC, Serial No. 88085646 (August 19, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cheryl S. Goodman). [Section 2(d) refusal of QUEENDOM AESTHETICS & Design in view of the registered mark QUEENDOM, both for beauty creams, beauty lotions, beauty milks, and make-up.

Read comments and post your comment here.


TTABlog comment: How did you do? Any WYHAs here?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2020.