TTABlog Test: Which of These Three Section 2(d) Refusals Was Reversed?

I’ve heard it said (by a TTAB judge) 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. Presented for your consideration are three recent TTAB decisions in Section 2(d) appeals. One was reversed. Which one? [Answer in first comment].

In re Iron Balls International, Serial No. 87299536 (January 16, 2019) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Albert Zervas) [Section 2(d) refusal to register the mark IRON BALLS ENGINEERED ALCOHOL & Design for “gin” [ENGINEERED ALCOHOL disclaimed] in view of the registered mark IRON BALLS for “beer”].

In re Reproductive Medicine Associates of New Jersey, LLC, Serial No. 87042698 (January 15, 2019) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Angela Lykos) [Section 2(d) refusal of ARTEMIS for “Computer software platforms for use by fertility healthcare providers for the purpose of accessing patient electronic medical records” in view of the registered mark ARTEMIS HEALTH for “Software as a service (SAAS) services featuring software, namely, for analysis, monitoring, report generation, planning, risk and expense management and decision making regarding health care information and utilization of employees” [HEALTH disclaimed].

In re HEG Inc, Serial No. 87061391 (January 16, 2019) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Susan J. Hightower) [Section 2(d) refusal to register the mark KICKSMART & Design for “retail convenience store services” in view of the registered mark KICKS for the identical services].

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog comment: How did you do?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2019.