Test Your TTAB Judge-Ability On These Five Mere Descriptiveness Refusals

Here for your contemplation are five Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusals. A few years ago, I estimated that 80% of mere descriptiveness refusals were affirmed by the Board. Do you think that the results of these five appeals will lower that percentage, or raise it?


In re Nihondo Co., Ltd., Serial No. 79071083 (January 24, 2012) [not precedential]. Mere descriptiveness refusal of KAMPO BOUTIQUE for "tea; tea-based beverages; Chinese tea; Japanese green tea; herbal tea; all of the goods not for medical, purposes but used in accords [sic] with kampo practices." [KAMPO disclaimed].


In re Tom Miranda Outdoors Inc., Serial No. 77704628 (January 30, 2012) [not precedential]. Refusal of DOMINANT BUCKS as merely descriptive of DVDs, etc., in the field of hunting, and entertainment services, namely a television series in the field of hunting.

In re Brilliant Design, LLC, Serial No. 77842712 (January 31, 2012) [not precedential]. PETTICOAT VINTAGE for women's clothing refused registration on the ground of mere descriptiveness.



In re Dorr Arthritis Institute Medical Associates, Inc., Serial No. 77803520 (February 2, 2012) [not precedential]. ORTHOROBOTICS merely descriptive of "medical surgery."


In re Alpha Equipment Services Inc., Serial No. 77943347 (February 2, 2012) [not precedential]. SMART VAC deemed merely descriptive of "manufacture of industrial vacuum vehicles to order and/or specification of others" [VACUUM disclaimed].


TTABlog comment: Big Hint: they all came out the same way.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2012.