A TTAB judge once told me that in 95% of Section 2(d) cases, one can predict the outcome just from looking at the marks and the involved goods/services. Here are three recent decision in Section 2(d) appeals. How do you think these came out? [Answer in first comment].

In re Brite and Clean, Inc., Serial No. 87384194 (October 7, 2019) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Thomas W. Wellington). [Section 2(d) refusal of BRITE & CLEAN & Design for “Cleaning preparation; water stain removal cleaning preparations; shower cleaning preparation; window cleaning preparation; bathroom cleaning preparation; glass cleaning preparation; cleaning preparation in powder form; cleaning wipes impregnated with a cleaning preparation; none of the foregoing for use with eyeglasses” in view of the registered mark CLEAN AND BRIGHT for “all-purpose cleaners”].

In re Sergei Orel, Serial No. 87545405 (October 4 2019) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cheryl S. Goodman). [Section 2(d) refusal of ARATTA for “Alcoholic beverages, except beer; Sparkling wines; Vodka; Wine” in view of the registered mark AURATA for “grape wine; still wine; table wines; white wine; wine; wines”].

In re Ballast Capital Advisors LLC, Serial No. 87509097 (October 2, 2019) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Marc A. Bergsman). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark BALLAST CAPITAL ADVISORS & Design for “financial planning and investment advisory services” [CAPITAL ADVISORS disclaimed] in view of the registered marks BALLAST POINT VENTURES, in standard character and design form, for “financial services, namely, venture capital, financial and investments consulting, financial and investments advice and financial and investments banking” [VENTURES disclaimed] and the mark BALLAST for “real estate investment services”].

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog comment: How did you do? See any WYHAs? BTW, why would one include both “wine” and “wines” in the identification of goods?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2019.