My mother often starts a story by saying, "I have a funny story to tell you." I often answer, "mom, you just tell us the story and we'll decide whether or not it's funny." I suppose a similar retort would work for the "interesting scenario"
(just busting your chops).
I would search TTAB/Fed Cir precedent to see if you can find a similar fact patter, but that's going to be tough, I imagine.
Regardless of the results (unless of course you hit the unlikely scenario of finding bad precedent), I would argue two things. First, point out the earlier allowance and registration and argue that no substantive facts have changed, so the mark should be deemed not merely descriptive.
Second, I would argue in the alternative that the use has been continuous for at least 6 years, and so at the very least there is a 2(f) basis.