It has been said 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 refusal was
reversed. Which one? [Answer in first comment].
In re Norková, Serial No. 79199465 (September 28,
2018) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christopher
Larkin). [Section 2(d) refusal of ZIPZAP for
""drying racks for laundry; clothes pegs" in view of
the identical mark registered for "scissors, in particular
hair cutting scissors, manicure scissors, sheet-metal shears,
poultry shears, cable scissors; tree pruning shears; nippers, nail
nippers, cuticle nippers; files; utility knives and
pliers"].
