Thursday, March 20, 2014

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

Here are three recent appeals from mere descriptiveness refusals under Section 2(e)(1). Let's see how you do with them, keeping in mind that the Board affirms, in my estimation, more than 80% of these refusals. By the way, do you see any WYHA's here?

In re Murphy Bed Concepts, Inc., Serial No. 85422382 (March 13, 2014) [not precedential]. [Mere descriptiveness refusal of MURPHY DESKBEDS for "furniture, namely, desks that are able to be converted to beds"].

In re OnForce, Inc., Serial No. 85422547 (March 13, 2014) [not precedential]. [Mere descriptiveness refusal of FIELD SERVICES CLOUD for "Providing a virtual marketplace connecting businesses and consumers with providers of goods and services via global computer networks, wireless networks, email or telephone; promoting the goods and services of others via global computer networks, wireless networks and email; providing a website whereby buyers and sellers transact business, monitor progress of goods and services, and provide evaluative feedback; providing real-time business information about companies, industries and markets; providing online business information directories featuring service providers and service buyers such as computer manufacturers and retailers; providing an interactive website on a global computer network for service providers to post information about their services and qualifications for providing the services, respond to service requests from third parties, and place and fulfill orders for products, services and business opportunities"].

In re Clic Goggles, Inc. Serial Nos. 85880646 and 85880679 (March 17, 2014) [not precedential]. [Mere descriptiveness refusals of EZ SNAP EYEWEAR and SNAP EZ EYEWEAR for "eyewear"].

Read comments and post your comment here.

Big TTABlog hint: They all came out the same way.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2014.


At 6:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Once again, no answers to your quiz. What in the world can you possibly be thinking? While your blog is otherwise very helpful, I cannot for the life of me believe that any attorney who has a book of business, much less a life, has ever gone to the trouble of looking up the answers, making your pedantic exercises a complete waste of time. You are an attorney, not a high school teacher. Why not put the answers below your ads for potency enhancers and the like?

At 10:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I like that he doesn't post the answers... he links to all of the decisions in his post...

At 5:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Too busy to click the links yet has enough time and energy to be a complete jackass on your free, educational and enjoyable site.. blog trolling at its best. What a clown.

Check out In re here's the answer, you lost.

I hope you got a laugh out of that ridiculous post John, keep up the great work!


Post a Comment

<< Home