A TTAB judge once told 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. Here are three recent Section 2(d) appeals, one of which resulted in a reversal. Which one, pray tell? [Answer will be found in first comment].
In re Brian Meneely, Serial No. 86751019 (July 26, 2017) [not precedential]. [Section 2(d) refusal of HIGH R. POWER for "audio and video recordings featuring music and artistic performances," in view of the registered mark HIGHER POWER, in stylized form, for, inter alia, providing music performances, musical videos, related film clips, photographs, and other multimedia materials on a global computer network, and entertainment services in the nature of production and distribution of video and/or audio programs featuring musical performances.
In re Ari Ventures, Serial No. 86838645 (July 26, 2017) [not precedential]. [Section 2(d) refusal of PINKY PETALS for "Nipple covers, namely pasties" in view of the registered mark PINK PETAL for various items of womens' clothing].
In re Leachco, Inc., Serial No. 86791850 (July 27, 2017) [not precedential]. [Section 2(d) refusal of CRITTERZZZ for "child sized body pillows," in view of the registered mark CUTIE CRITTERS for "Household items, namely, cushions, pillows, pillow sets primarily comprising a pillow with an attached blanket, pillow and blanket sets primarily comprising pillows"].