TTAB Derails "RAILDRIVER" Mark
The TTAB may have gone off the track in affirming a Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusal of the mark RAILDRIVER for "electronic train controllers." In re P.I. Engineering, Serial No. 76404455 (November 18, 2004) [not citable].
The Board concluded that RAILDRIVER is merely descriptive of P.I. Engineering's product "because it directly informs purchasers of a key feature and purpose of the product, i.e., that the product allows users to simulate the experience of being a rail driver."
It is noteworthy that the Board seemed to shift the burden of proof onto Applicant to show that the term "rail driver" would not apply to any type of train operator. Moreover, isn't the Applicant supposed to enjoy the "benefit of the doubt" when it comes to a Section 2(e)(1) refusal?