It's been said 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. 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In re Razer Auto Inc., Serial No. 86670410 (September 27, 2017) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Jyll Taylor}. [Section 2(d) refusal of RAZER AUTO for after-market automobile accessories, not including tires [AUTO disclaimed], in view of the registered mark RAZR for tires].

In re BambuLife, LLC, Serial No. 86933850 (September 22, 2017) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Linda A. Kuczma). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark BAMBULIFE in the design form shown below, for various clothing items, in view of the registered mark BAMBU for "T-shirts, sweatshirts and hats”].

In re Worldwise, Inc., Serial No. 87278085 (September 21, 2017) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Thomas Shaw) [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark HYPERNIP for "pet toys containing catnip" and "catnip," in view of the registered mark HYPERDOG & Design (shown below) for "dog toy, namely a device used to throw a ball for a dog to retrieve"].