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. No hints this time. How do you
think these came out? [Answers in first comment].

In re 412 Public House, LLC, Serial No.
88205268 (August 19, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge
Jonathan Hudis). [Section 2(d) refusal of 412 PUBLIC
HOUSE for "Bar services; Restaurant services"
[PUBLIC HOUSE disclaimed], in view the registered mark 412
BBQ for, inter alia, restaurant and bar services
[BBQ disclaimed].

In re Minted, LLC, Serial No. 88031150
(August 19, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cindy B.
Greenbaum) [Section 2(d) refusal of PIPPA for
"Paper products, namely, stationery, envelopes, printed
invitations, announcement cards, note cards, and greeting
cards," in view of the registered mark PIPPA &
CO. for "Retail