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

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

In re Melapreneur, Serial No. 90858280 (April 15, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Michael B. Adlin). [Section 2(d) refusal of MELAPRENEUR for online retail clothing store services and for providing podcasts for motivational and educational purposes about entrepreneurship in the black community, in view of the registered mark MELANINPRENEURS for directory services featuring hyperlinks to the websites of Black owned businesses.]

In re RoboBurger Enterprises Inc., Serial No. 90884560 (April 18, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christopher C. Larkin). [Section 2(d) refusal to register ROBO for "vending machines; industrial robots for making and assembling hamburgers and heated patty sandwiches," in view of the registered mark ROBOCAFE for vending machines.]

In re American Health Formulations, Inc., Serial No. 88911633 (April 19, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Martha B. Allard). [Section 2(d) refusal to register the mark shown immediately below, for "dietary supplements for humans," in view of the registered mark NEXGEN ADVANCED for, inter alia, dietary supplements.]

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog comment: How did you do? See any non-WYHA?s

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2024.