TTABlog Test: Which of These Three Section 2(d) Refusals Was/Were Overturned on Appeal?

The TTAB affirmance rate for Section 2(d) appeals this year continues to hover around 90%. Here are three recent Board decisions, at least one of which reversed the refusal. How do you think they came out? [Answer in first comment].

In re Vermutería de Galicia, S.L., Serial No. 90385649 (November 29, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cynthia C. Lynch). [Section 2(d) refusal of the word-and-design mark shown below, for "vermouth" in view of the registered mark PETRONI for "wine."]

In re AMVAC Chemical Corporation, Serial No. 97631691 (November 26, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Robert Lavache). [Section 2(d) refusal of the word-and-design mark shown below, for "Chemical analysis; Chemical research; Chemical research and analysis; Chemical research services" in view of the registered mark SMARTSOIL for "Printed reports, namely, computer generated reports of field soil profiles" and for "services in the field of soil and crop management by providing printed reports of soil profiles."]

In re Mark Cachia, Serial No. 88276115 (November 25, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Michael B. Adlin). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark SCYTALE for advertising and promotional services, business management, and financial and investment services, in view of the identical mark registered for consulting and informational services in the field of open-source software.]

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: How did you do?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2024.