TTABlog Test: Three Section 2(d) Appeals - Affirmed or Reversed?

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 recent Board decisions. No hints this time How do you think they came out? [Answer in first comment].

In re Brumis Imports, Inc., Serial No. 90605980 (December 16, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christen M. English). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark BKLYN REFINERY for, inter alia, shampoo, body wash, and shower gel [BKLYN disclaimed], in view of the mark THE REFINERY for, inter alia, the same goods.]

In re Gymeni Fitness Technology LLC, Serial No. 97428010 (December 16, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christen M. English) [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark GYMENI for "caps, t-shirts, sweatshirts, athletic shorts" in view of the registered mark GYMINI for, inter alia, tee-shirts, shorts, and sports caps.]

In re Zoom Video Communications, Inc., Serial No. 97747222 (December 16, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Martha B. Allard). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark ZOOM CALENDAR for calendaring software and related services [CALENDAR disclaimed] in view of the registered mark ZOOM REHEARSE for software as a service (SAAS) that provides, among other things, electronic calendaring.]

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: See any WYHA?s?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2024.