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In re Murphy Bed Concepts, Inc., Serial No. 85422382 (March 13, 2014) [not precedential].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In re OnForce, Inc., Serial No. 85422547 (March 13, 2014) [not precedential].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In re Clic Goggles, Inc. Serial Nos. 85880646 and 85880679 (March 17, 2014) [not precedential].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.