Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Test Your TTAB Judge-Ability: Which One of these Five Mere Descriptiveness Refusals Was Reversed?


The TTAB reversed the PTO in one of the five Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness cases summarized below. [Actually, in the second case, the refusal was based on Applicant's failure to disclaim "APOTHECARY"]. Let's see how you do with them. Do you find any WYHA's here? [Post your comment here].



In re Jrm Nutrasciences LLC, Serial No. 85165397 (November 16, 2012) [not precedential]. [Section 2e)(1) refusal of MUSCLE SPORT INTERNATIONAL for "Dietary and nutritional supplements; Herbal supplements; Nutraceuticals for use as dietary supplements; Weight loss dietary supplements; Pre-workout energy powder drink mixes, namely, nutritional supplement in the nature of a nutrient-dense, protein-based drink mix" [INTERNATIONAL disclaimed].


In re Retail Royalty Company, Serial No. 85257100 (November 20, 2012) [not precedential]. [Rule 6(a) requirement that Applicant disclaim APOTHECARY in the mark HAPPY APOTHECARY for cosmetics].


In re RYW Enterprises, LLC, Serial No. 85260850 (November 27, 2012) [not precedential]. [Refusal to register CRAB RANGOON for "prepared deep-fried dumplings consisting primarily of crab, cheese and vegetables in a flour wrap"].


In re Stephan Blass, Serial No. 85001985 (November 29, 2012) [not precedential]. [Refusal of LightLight for lights products and lighting installation apparatus].


In re OurPet’s Company, Serial No. 85329890 (November 30, 2012) [not precedential]. [Refusal of TOYS FOR TREATS for pet toys].


Text Copyright John L. Welch 2012.

3 Comments:

At 9:58 AM, Blogger Pamela Chestek said...

Yaay! My first guess was right.

And CRAB RANGOON a definite WYHA.

 
At 7:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Me too!

And I had Crab Rangoon for dinner the other night!

 
At 2:36 PM, Blogger Gene Bolmarcich said...

I disagree wholeheartedly with the LightLight decision. Being both an adjective and a noun (and also a verb but that is irrelevant here), why doesn't the mark inherently convey a double-entendre (i.e. as a repeated word and also as meaning a light (weight) light)? There is no good policy reason for refusing double words as descriptive. Do competitors have a NEED to use these silly trademarks? Putting aside the double-entendre argument, it seems to me that this can also be argued to be suggestive if one considers the second "LIGHT" as the adjective (think all of the food trademarks of the form " ____ LITE". I'd argue it's a play on this formative....then I'd kick myself for not having thought of "LIGHT LITE" or "LITE LIGHT" in the first place! To see a really brilliant argument that was bought be the Examining Attorney, see the mark COUTURE COUTURE (one in Class3 and the other in Class 25). As a funny footnote, I had to disclaim one of the COUTUREs but I have no idea which one it was!

Gene Bolmarcich, Esq.
www.trademarksa2r.com
www.trademarktripper.blogspot.com

 

Post a Comment

<< Home