TTABlog Test: Which of These Three Recent 2(d) Appeals Was/Were Reversed?

The rate of affirmance for Section 2(d) refusals is over 90% so far this year. That's on the high side in comparison to the past dozen years. Here are three recent TTAB decisions, at least one of which was reversed. How do you think they came out? Answers in first comment.

In re Dileep Essentials Pvt. Ltd., Serial No. 90542201 (February 22, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cheryl S. Goodman) [Section 2(d) refusal of ELLEMENTRY for candles in view of the registered mark shown below, for "Non-medicated skin cleansing and exfoliating preparations; pads for cleaning impregnated with cosmetics; Nonmedicated soaps; perfumes; essential oils; cosmetics; make-up; make-up removing preparations; lipstick; beauty masks."]

Vinedo de Zorro, LLC, Serial No. 90157017 (February 29, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Michael B. Adlin) [Section 2(d) refusal to register VINEDO DE ZORRO for “limited-production, hand-made, premium wine" [VINEDO disclaimed] in view of the registered mark BAR ZORRO for “restaurant and bar services" [BAR disclaimed]].

In re J & J Property Company, LLC, Serial No. 97175429 (February 29, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cheryl S. Goodman) [Section 2(d) refusal of HOLLYWOOD CENTRAL MARKET for "real estate management" and for "mixed-use real estate development" [HOLLYWOOD and MARKET disclaimed], in view of the registered mark HOLLYWOOD CENTRAL PARK, in standard character form, for "real estate development services" [HOLLYWOOD AND PARK disclaimed].]

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog comment: How did you do?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2023.