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

Here are three recent TTAB decisions in Section 2(d) appeals. Remembering that a TTAB Judge (now retired) once said that one can predict the outcome of a Section 2(d) appeal 95% of the time just by considering the marks and the goods/services, how do you think these came out? [Answer in first comment].

In re Studio Mir Co., Ltd., Serial No. 90310822 (April 24, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Lawrence T. Stanley, Jr.). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark KOJI for, inter alia, comic or picture books and toys "relating to fictional character from anime series" in view of the identical mark registered for "stickers."]

In re Natures Generator, Inc., Serial No. 97519777 (April 28, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Robert Lavache). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark shown below, for "Solar-powered electricity generators; Wind-powered electricity generators" in view of the registered mark POWERHOUSE for "Portable electric generators."]

In re Marx Brothers, Inc., Serial No. 98455354 (May 1, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Robert Lavache). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark PALM ISLE for "Coconut milk; Coconut oil for food; Desiccated coconut; Flaked coconut; Processed coconut" in view of the registered mark PALM ISLAND for "Gourmet sea salt for cooking and spices."]

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: How did you do? See any WYHA?s ?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.