TTABlog Test: Which of These Section 2(d) Refusals Was/Were Reversed?

So far this year, the rate of TTAB affirmance of Section 2(d) refusals is running at about 94%. However, at least one of these recent Section 2(d) refusals summarized below was reversed. How do you think these appeals came out? [Answers in first comment.]

In re Paragon 28, Inc., Serial Nos. 88283057 & 88283073 (July 25, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Robert Lavache) [Section 2(d) refusal of the marks SILVERBACK, in standard character and design forms, for "Surgical implants, namely, bone plates and bone fasteners made from artificial material for use in the foot and ankle; all the foregoing not containing silver material," in view of the registered mark SILVERBAC for "surgical apparatus and instruments for medical, dental and veterinary use; artificial limbs, eyes and teeth; suture materials . . . all of the foregoing containing sufficient natural silver ions to meet the standard for use of the term for antimicrobial benefits in the relevant industries.”]

In re Bryant Family Confections, LLC, Serial No. 97294648 (July 25, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Albert J. Zervas) [Section 2(d) refusal of the marks ENCORE ZERO for "wafers; edible wafers" [ZERO disclaimed], in view of the registered marks SWEET ENCORE for "dessert items, namely, cakes, cheesecakes, crème brulee, dessert mousse, pies, cream puffs, bread pudding, flan, dessert soufflés, dessert bar cookies, bars, brownies, frozen desserts consisting of fruit and cream topping, mousse desserts consisting of cinnamon, chocolate, and cream" and the word-and-design mark shown below, for "bakery goods and dessert items, namely, cakes, cheesecakes, crème brulee, dessert mousse, pies, cream puffs, bread pudding, flan, dessert soufflés, dessert bar cookies, brownies, desserts consisting of fruit and cream topping, desserts consisting of cinnamon, mousse, chocolate, and cream." SWEET and FINE DESSERTS disclaimed].]

PharmAssist Concierge Pharmaceutical Services, PLLC, Serial No. 88326775 (July 25, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cheryl S. Goodman) [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark shown below left, for "Preparation of prescriptions by pharmacists; Pharmaceutical consultations; Health care services, namely, wellness programs; Pharmaceutical consultations provided via phone, online chat or video conferencing; Providing health care information by the Internet; Providing in-person holistic health care services; Providing medical information, consultancy and advisory services; Pharmaceutical advice," in view of the registered marks PHARM-ASSIST for "Pharmaceutical services, namely, processing online and telephone prescription orders in retail and central fill pharmacies; Retail pharmacy services," and the mark shown below right, for "providing medical information to and concerning senior citizens; providing medical testing; and providing medical information to and concerning senior citizens pertaining to medicine, health, and medications."] 

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog comment: How did you do?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2024.