TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Section 2(e)(1) Mere Descriptiveness Appeals Turn Out?

The TTAB recently ruled on the appeals from the three Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusals summarized below. Let's see how you do with them, keeping in mind that the Board affirms, by my calculation, some 90% of these refusals. Answer(s) will be found in the first comment.

, Serial No. 88617904 (August 5, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cheryl S. Goodman). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of BLOOD SUGAR PREMIER for "dietary supplements." Applicant argued that "the notion that blood sugar is first [in importance] is nonsensical" since blood sugar can be "high," "low" or "okay," and the notion that blood sugar is first has no relationship to or in any way describes the goods.]