Test Your TTAB Judge-Ability On These Five Mere Descriptiveness Refusals
By my estimate, somewhere around 80-85% of all Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusals that reach the TTAB are affirmed on appeal. Well, here are five appeals that were decided in late February. How do you think they came out? Do you see any "WYHA?"s here?
In re Dharmacon, Inc., Serial No. 85041732 (February 22, 2013) [not precedential]. [SHMIMIC for "Research support reagents, namely, reagents for use in scientific, genetic and medical research; reagents containing nucleic acids exhibiting microRNA activity when transfected into mammalian cells in tissue culture for laboratory use"].
In re Mark Holdings, LLC, Serial No. 85163500 (February 25, 2013) [not precedential]. [LENDING STORE for "providing business marketing services for the financial products industry"].
In re Western Industries, Inc., Serial No. 85076800 (February 25, 2013) [not precedential]. [PREMIUM. RELIABLE. PERFORMANCE. for "Cooking ovens; Cooking ranges; Electric cooktops; Electric food warmers; Electric stoves; Electric towel warmers; Extractor hoods for kitchens; Gas stoves; Plate warmers"].
In re MVP Group International, Inc., Serial No. 85078518 (February 25, 2013) [not precedential]. [ECO WICK in standard character form for "candles; scented candles"].
In re Mdintellesys, LLC, Serial No. 85136211 (February 28, 2013) [not precedential]. [ADAPTIVE TEMPLATE TECHNOLOGY in standard character form for goods identified as "Electronic medical records software for database management, namely, the creation, management, and access to medical records and charts"].
Read comments and post your comments here.
TTABlog hint: They all came out the same way.
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2013.