TTABlog Test: Three Recent Section 2(d) Appeals

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In re Antonio F. Domingues and Kathy J. Bruzesse, Serial Nos. 87553246 and 87553279 (November 27, 2019) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Frances Wolfson). [Section 2(d) refusal of FORTTUNA FOODS, in standard character and design form, for "Cakes; Candy; Candy bars; Chocolate; Chocolate bars; Chocolate confection" [FOODS disclaimed], in view of the registered mark FORTUNA (Stylized) for, inter alia, "Candied fruit snacks, nut-based snack foods, sesame oil, quail eggs, powdered milk for food purposes, dairy-based food beverages, fruit-based food beverages." Applicants argued that the unconventional spelling of FORTTUNA distinguished the marks and that registrant sells its