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 Draion M. Burch DO Inc., Serial No. 888603134
(August 17, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Frances S.
Wolfston). [Section 2(d) refusal of MOMENTUM for
"Vaginal moisturizers; Personal lubricants" in view of
the registered mark MOMENTUM NUTRITION for
nutritional supplements [NUTRITION disclaimed].]
In re Altoz, Inc., Serial No. 88625236 (August 17, 2021)
[not precedential] (Opinion by Judge David Mermelstein). [Section
2(d) refusal of TRX for "[z]ero turn riding
lawn mowers," in view of the identical mark registered for
"[a]ll terrain vehicles and structural parts
therefor."]
