Test Your TTAB Judge-Ability: Which One of These Four Mere Descriptiveness Refusals Did the Board Reverse?
Here we go again, all you potential TTAB judges out there! This time the test is just a little bit more difficult. One of these four appeals from Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusals was reversed, the other three affirmed. Which was which? [Answer in comments.]
In re Cochlear Limited, Serial Nos. 77634585, 77634587 and 77634590 (August 30, 2011) [not precedential]. [HYBRID for medical software in the field of audiology, implantable prosthetic hearing devices and associated accessories and monitoring equipment, and audiologist services].
In re Harajuku Lovers, LLC, Serial No. 77474909 (September 1, 2011) [not precedential]. [Refusal of the mark shown below on the ground that the Japanese characters ベイビーcomprise the merely descriptive word "baby" and must be disclaimed, for certain skin care and hair care products].
In re Keith Stonebraker, Serial No. 77613568 (September 2, 2011) [not precedential]. [KAMO KIDS for "disposable diapers'].
In re Momentum Insights, Inc., Serial No. 77815534 (September 2, 2011) [not precedential]. [FRIENDS & FAMILY REWARDS PROGRAM in standard character form, for "on-line web site that enables business management, tracking and registration of referral sources in the field of motor vehicle sales" [REWARDS PROGRAM disclaimed]].
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2011.