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In re Cochlear Limited, Serial Nos. 77634585, 77634587 and 77634590 (August 30, 2011) [not precedential].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In re Harajuku Lovers, LLC, Serial No. 77474909 (September 1, 2011) [not precedential].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In re Keith Stonebraker, Serial No. 77613568 (September 2, 2011) [not precedential].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In re Momentum Insights, Inc., Serial No. 77815534 (September 2, 2011) [not precedential].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.
posted by John L. Welch @ 9/13/2011
7 comments
7 Comments:
The fourth refusal was reversed.
Good thing all 4 are non-precedent!
That Japanese case is incredible.
Baby is descriptive of "cosmetics, skin care products, personal fragrances, and hair care products"?
Somebody needs their diaper changed because they are full of it.
Crazy. The fourth one was the only one I was positive was descriptive. I did look quickly, but am very interested in reading these.
The Board got the FRIENDS AND FAMILY one totally wrong. They basically punted and said evidence was not there.
Believe it or not in this decision the Board reverses basically because "[Applicant's] services are not a reward program."
But the words REWARDS PROGRAM is a part of the mark that is disclaimed!
Are you kidding me?
You should start a BELIEVE IT OR NOT category for the Board. BION.
@Anonymous2: A correct reading of page 10 of the “Japanese case” will reveal that the decision did not require a disclaimer as to “cosmetics and personal fragrances,” but only as to a specific subset of goods that could be used on babies, including hair care products, and yes, skin care products that may well be used during a (non-judicial) diaper change. Anonymous4
As to the last comment, I modified the post.
Post a Comment
<< Home