Test Your TTAB Judge-Abiliity: Which One of these Four Mere Descriptiveness Refusals Was Reversed?
By my estimation, somewhere around 80 to 85% of all Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusals that reach the TTAB are affirmed on appeal. Well, here are four appeals that were decided in the last week or so. One refusal was reversed. Which one, pray tell? [Answer in first comment].
In re US Digital Media, Inc., Serial Nos. 85752995 and 85753010 (August 27, 2014) [not precedential]. [Refusal of BUD BAG and EAR BUD BAG for "ear bud accessory, namely, ear bud case"].
In re Internet Promise Group LLC, Serial No. 85637786 (August 25, 2014) [not precedential]. [Refusal of SPICE WATER for "a water-based beverage with a blend of tropical fruit extracts and spices from Indian subcontinent [sic]"].
In re Ethos USA, Inc., Serial No. 85675559 (August 25, 2014) [not precedential]. [Refusal of PROGEAR for "covers for golf clubs; gloves for golf; golf bag covers; golf bags; golf clubs"].
In re Nanomech, Inc., Serial No. 85602143 (August 22, 2014) [not precedential]. [Refusal of nSert for "machine tools for the cutting of materials, namely, coated substrates manufactured using nanotechnology"].
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog note: See any WYHA?s here, Bud?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2014.