Here we go again! I hear the trumpets blow again! Oh, nevermind. You may recall that a TTAB judge once remarked that one can predict the outcome of a Section 2(d) appeal 95% of the time just by looking at the marks and the goods or services. Here for your consideration are three TTAB decisions rendered two days ago in Section 2(d) appeals. One was reversed. Which one? [Answer in first comment].

In re Lonely Hearts Club Limited, Serial Nos. 79174419 and 79176727 ((November 15, 2017) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Karen Kuhlke) [Section 2(d) refusal to register the marks LONELY, in standard character and design form, for  “Clothing, namely, lingerie excluding socks and stockings.” in view of the registered mark LONELYSHOES for “Footwear, ballet shoes in the nature of flat shoes, slippers, shoes, half-boots, sandals, clogs being footwear, soles, socks and stockings”].

In re James Robinson, Serial No.86914326 (November 15, 2017) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cindy B. Greenbaum) [Section 2(d) refusal of LEAF BY OSCAR in view of the registered mark OSCAR, both for cigars].

In re Q’Sai Co., Ltd., Serial No. 79157321 (November 15, 2017) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Lorelei Ritchie) [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark Q’SAI for fruit juice, concentrates for making fruit juice, vegetable juices, and food products, in view of the registered mark SAI for “soft drinks, namely, noncarbonated soft drinks; beauty beverages, namely, energy drinks containing mineral supplements”].