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. No hints this time. Let's see how you do with them. Answer will be found in the first comment.

In re Esther Yang, Serial Nos. 88708065 and 88708080 (November 1, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Jyll Taylor). [Mere descriptiveness refusals of HOT KARATE and HOT SELF DEFENSE for physical fitness instruction and training services. Applicant maintained that the marks are registrable because they create "double meanings," since "hot" can mean high in temperature or "hot" as in "currently popular or in demand."]

In re Oral Arts Laboratory, Inc., Serial No. 88092627 (November 3, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cynthia C. Lynch). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of BIOLOGIC HYBRID (Stylized) for "dental implants; dental crowns; dental fixtures, namely, prefabricated parts for crowns, bridges and pontics." Applicant argued