Some ten years ago, a TTAB judge said to me that one can predict the outcome of a Section 2(d) case 95% of the time just by looking at the marks and the goods or services. Here are three recent decisions in appeals from Section 2(d) refusals.  How do you think these came out? [Answers in first comment].
In re Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, LLC, Serial No. 86556581 (May 14, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Karen Kuhlke). [Section 2(d) refusal of HYPERLOOP for “Providing transportation services and a transportation system, namely, transport of passengers in low friction tubes,” in view of the identical mark registered for “transportation services, namely, high-speed transportation of goods in tubes”].

In re Centennial Media LLC, Serial No. 88035215 (March 12, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christopher Larkin). [Section 2(d) refusal of WOMEN & WEED for “Magazines in the field of marijuana and medical marijuana for women, sold directly to consumers at newsstands and retail outlets” in light of the registered mark WOMEN OF WEED for “Association services, namely, promoting the interests of a membership comprised of women in the cannabis and hemp industries and the cannabis and hemp movements for the purposes of personal, social, professional, and business development thereof; Business networking,” and for “Social club services, namely, arranging, organizing, and hosting social events, get-togethers, and parties for club members”].

In re Guidos Burritos LLC, Serial No. 87931059 (May 12, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Linda A. Kuczma) [Section 2(d) refusal of GUIDO’S BURRITOS and Design (shown below) for “Clothing, namely, t-shirts and hoodies” and for “Mexican Restaurant and Tequila Cantina” [BURRITOS disclaimed], in view of the registered mark GUIDO’S for “restaurant services”].

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog comment: How did you do? Any WYHAs here?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2019.