Reversing 2d Refusals

Welcome to my curated index of ex parte TTAB appeals where the Board reversed or partially reversed a Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion refusal. We all know how tough it can be to convince the examining attorney to withdraw a 2(d) refusal, and taking it to the Board is rarely a decision made lightly. This page is dedicated to those cases that show us the winning strategy and evidence. Although most of them are not precendential, these cases still offer invaluable strategic roadmaps, persuasive framing, and a pulse on how the Board weighs specific evidence.

To help you pinpoint a relevant strategy quickly, I’ve organized these cases by the specific DuPont factors that proved instrumental in tipping the scale in the applicant's favor. I hope you find

I hope you find this list helpful in your practice.

DuPont #1 : Similarity or dissimilarity of the marks

How Distinctive Connotations and Conceptual Weakness Can Overcome a Section 2(d) Refusal

GOOD TIMES || GOODE TIMES GUARANTEED • In re Genuine Risk, No. 90170906 (TTAB March 23, 2026) • [Not a Precedent ] • case link • • Core Issue: Likelihood of confusion analysis under DuPont factors, specifically focusing on the similarity of marks and the conceptual weakness of the common terms. Even when goods are legally identical

ESQedESQed

Mark Dissimilarity & Purchaser Sophistication Outweigh Other Factors

SEVEN STARLING || STARLING PHYSICIANS • In re Jutiso Inc., No. 90828203 (TTAB June 4, 2026)• [Not a Precedent ] • case link • • Core Issue: Likelihood of confusion between SEVEN STARLING (Classes 41 & 45) and STARLING PHYSICIANS (Class 44). Background The Applicant, Jutiso Inc., sought to register the standard character mark SEVEN STARLING in

ESQedESQed

Using Additional Elements to Imbue New Meaning Into Shared Initialisms

NORTHWEST NWA AIRLINE (design) || NWA • In re Malibu Shirts, Inc., No. 98696754 (TTAB May 21, 2026) • [Not a Precedent ] • case link • • Core Issue: Likelihood of confusion analysis under DuPont factors, focusing on whether the addition of NORTHWEST AIRLINES and aviation-themed design elements to the initialism NWA creates a sufficiently

ESQedESQed

Reversing a Section 2(d) Refusal Through Cultural Connotation and Commercial Impression

DUNDER MIFFLIN|| MIFFLIN • In re NBCUniversal Media, LLC, No. 97831933 (TTAB March 24, 2026) • [Not a Precedent ] • case link • • Core Issue: Likelihood of confusion analysis under DuPont factors, specifically focusing on the similarity of marks and pop cultural connotation. This decision serves as a vital reminder that the first DuPont

ESQedESQed

Dominant Term Overshadows Foreign Translations

MICHAEL THE BULL || ABOGADO EL TORO MICHAEL “THE BULL” LAMONSOFF || CALL IN THE BULL MICHAELTHEBULL.COM || THE BULL ATTORNEYS! • In re Law Offices of Michael S. Lamonsoff, PLLC, Serial Nos. 98316445, 98317034, and 98317055 (Consolidated) (TTAB February 11, 2026).• [Not a Precedent ] • case link • • Core Issue: Likelihood of confusion analysis

ESQedESQed

DuPont #2: Relatedness of the goods or services

Mind the Gap: When Identical Marks Fail to Bridge the Chasm of Unrelated Goods

SPINFLOW (design) || SPINFLOW • In re Zhenhai Petrochemical Jianan Engineering Co., Ltd., No. 79381020 (TTAB February 5, 2026) • [Not a Precedent ] • case link • • Core Issue: Likelihood of confusion analysis under DuPont factors, specifically focusing on the relatedness of goods and the probative value of third-party distributor evidence. This case reminds

ESQedESQed

Reversing 2(d) Refusals Via Evidentiary Failure and Conceptual Weakness

CASA BLANCA|| CASABLANCA • In re Lucien G. Lallouz, No. 90782980 (TTAB March 27, 2026) • [Not a Precedent ] • case link • • Core Issue: Likelihood of confusion analysis under Section 2(d) involving the marks CASA BLANCA for tequila and CASABLANCA for wine. A likelihood of confusion refusal can be successfully overcome, even

ESQedESQed

Failure to Prove Relatedness Defeats 2(d) Refusal of Identical Marks

LA LA LAND || LA LA LAND • In re Home and Human Fashion Pty. Ltd., No. 98073221 (TTAB June 4, 2026) • [Not a Precedent ] • case link • • Core Issue: Likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) between Applicant’s goods in Classes 16, 18, 24, and 28 and Registrant’s Class 35

ESQedESQed

Lack of “Something More” Leads to 2(d) Reversal

DAILY HARVEST CAFE (design) || DAILY HARVEST • In re Daily Harvest Café, No. 98269684 (TTAB April 2, 2026) • [Not a Precedent ] • case link • • Core Issue: Whether “cafe and restaurant services” are sufficiently related to various pre-packaged food products and online retail store services featuring food to create a likelihood of

ESQedESQed

How Scope Limitation and Connotation Defeated a 2(d) Refusal

PRO-GO || HANDY PRO-GO • In re Sun Tube, LLC, No. 97365902 (TTAB May 22, 2026)• [Not a Precedent ] • case link • • Core Issue: Likelihood of confusion analysis under the DuPont factors, specifically focusing on the relatedness of goods and the similarity of commercial impressions when one mark is entirely encompassed

ESQedESQed

DuPont #3: Similarity or dissimilarity of established, likely-to-continue trade channels

Service Dissimilarity Overcame Identical Marks in a 2(d) Appeal

WHERE LIFE HAPPENS || WHERE LIFE HAPPENS • In re Aggressor Adventures, LLC, No. 98356369 (TTAB March 9, 2026) • [Not a Precedent ] • case link • • Core Issue: Whether consumers familiar with the cited mark WHERE LIFE HAPPENS for restaurant services would mistakenly believe that safari expedition services under the same mark emanate from

ESQedESQed

DuPont #4: Conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are made

How Consumer Sophistication and Niche IDs Can Overcome a 2(d) Refusal

MERMAID (design) || MERMADE • In re TDI Novus Inc., No. 98593408 (TTAB May 12, 2026) • [Not a Precedent ] • case link • • Core Issue: Likelihood of confusion analysis under DuPont factors, specifically focusing on the distinction between broad “apparatus” and specialized “systems” and the impact on consumer sophistication and trade channels. In this

ESQedESQed

Crowded Field & Consumer Awareness Mitigate Likelihood of Confusion

MISTER JUNETEENTH || JUNIOR MISS JUNETEENTH • In re Connecting Forward, LLC, Serial No. 97565017 (TTAB June 26, 2026) • [Not a Precedent ] • case link • • Core Issue: Whether the mark MISTER JUNETEENTH for pageant-related entertainment services is likely to cause confusion with the registered marks MISS JUNETEENTH SCHOLARSHIP PAGEANTRY PROGRAM, JUNIOR MISS

ESQedESQed

DuPont #5: Fame of the prior mark

DuPont #6: Strength of mark

How Conceptual Weakness and Mark Dissimilarity Overcome Identical Services at the TTAB

GHOST (design) || GHOST (design) • In re The Ghost Agency, Inc., Serial No. 98709623 (TTAB June 18, 2026) • [Not a Precedent ] • case link • • Core Issue: Whether a stylized mark featuring the word “GHOST” for advertising services is likely to cause confusion with a previously registered stylized mark for “GHOST” covering identical

ESQedESQed

DuPont #7: Nature and extent of any actual confusion

DuPont #8: Cconcurrent use

DuPont #9:Variety of goods on which a mark is or is not used

DuPont #10:Market interface between the applicant and the owner of a prior mark

Deferring to the Marketplace: TTAB Reverses Section 2(d) Refusal Based on Prior Settlement

HOUSE OF PRIM || PRIM • In re Prim LLC, No. 98301711 (Consolidated) 98301726, 98301752, 98301773, 98301804 (TTAB March 27, 2026)• [Not a Precedent ] • case link • • Core Issue: Whether a settlement agreement between an applicant and a registrant, which lacks the formal language of a “consent to register,” can still carry substantial

ESQedESQed

DuPont #11:Extent to which the applicant has a right to exclude others from use of its mark on its goods

DuPont #12:Extent of potential confusion

DuPont #13: Other factors