TTABlog Test: Three Recent Section 2(d) Appeals - How Did They Turn Out?

A TTAB judge once said to me that one can predict the outcome of a Section 2(d) appeal about 95% of the time just by looking at the marks and the goods/services. Of course, if you just said "affirmed" you'd be right about 90% of the time. Anyway, here are three Board decisions issued on Christmas Adam. No hints this time. How do you think they came out? [Answer in first comment].

In re Blue Dragon Fly, Inc., Serial No. 90825428 (December 19, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Robert H. Coggins). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark shown below, for, "Bath cream; Body cream; Body lotion; Hair lotion; Hand cream; Hand lotions; Skin cream; Skin lotion" and for "Shirts; T-shirts; Tee shirts" in view of the registered mark BLUE DRAGONFLY ACRES for "Body butter; Bath soaps in liquid, solid or gel form."

In re Dictador Holding Limited, Serial No. 97349113 (December 23, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christopher C. Larkin) [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark DICTADOR ARTHOUSE SPIRITS for "Alcoholic beverages, except beer and wine" [SPIRITS disclaimed] in view of the registered mark ART HOUSE for "wine."]

In re Monogram Health, Inc., Serial No. 97412872 (December 23, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Michael B. Adlin). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark shown below left, for "medical services in the field of nephrology" in view of the registered mark shown below right, for "medical services, namely, medication monitoring and drug detection services to evaluate patient treatment plans and improve clinical outcomes and patient safety."]

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: See any WYHA?s? BTW: What's the difference between T-shirts and Tee shirts? The latter are for golfers only.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2024.