A TTAB judge once 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 Simoniz USA, Inc, Serial No. 87865135 (November 3,
2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christopher Larkin).
[Section 2(d) refusal of SIMONIZ
CERAMICSHIELD for "Paint sealant for exterior
surfaces of vehicle" in view of the registered
mark PLATINUM CERAMIC SHIELD for
""Clear coating protectant containing ceramic
nanoparticles for use on vehicles" [CERAMIC disclaimed].
Applicant argued that "the common element of the marks, i.e.,
'CERAMIC SHIELD,' is weak because it is descriptive of the
named goods, thus, it is unlikely that consumers will be confused,
as the overall combinations have no other commonality."]
