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

TTAB affirmances of Section 2(d) refusals are running at about 86% so far this year, below the usual 90%. Here are three appeals decided recently. How do you think they came out? [Answer in first comment].

In re Ripped Franchise, LLC, Serial No. 98369548 (August 10, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Jennifer L. Elgin). [Section 2(d) refusal of the word-plus-design mark shown below, for "Physical fitness instruction," in view of the registered mark GET RIPPED for “physical fitness training services and educational services, namely, providing training of physical fitness instructors for certification in the field of physical fitness training."]

In re A.W. Farrell & Son, Inc., Serial No. 98597246 (August 10, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Mark A. Thurmon). [Section 2(d) refusal of the word-plus-design mark shown below, for "Roofing contracting; Roofing installation; Roofing maintenance; Roofing repair; Roofing services" [ROOFING disclaimed] in view of the registered mark FARRELL BUILDING COMPANY for "construction of buildings; real estate development; building construction services" [BUILDING COMPANY disclaimed.]

In re Iberostar Hoteles Y Apartamentos, S.L., Serial Nos. 79385220 (August 13, 2026) [not precedential] [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Wendy B. Cohen). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark JOIA BY IBEROSTAR BEACHFRONT RESORTS for “services for providing food and beverages; providing temporary accommodation; temporary accommodation reservation services for travellers; hotel accommodation and restaurant services" [BEACHFRONT RESORTS disclaimed] in view of the registered mark JOIA BEACH for “restaurant and bar services."]

Read comments and post your comment here.

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

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.