Test Your TTAB Judge-Ability On These Four Mere Descriptiveness Refusals
Here are four recent appeals from mere descriptiveness refusals under Section 2(e)(1). Let's see how you do with them, keeping in mind that, by my estimation, the Board affirms more than 80% of these refusals. [Answers in first comment].
In re The Rainmaker Agency, LLC, Serial No. 85743797 (November 3, 2014) [Mere descriptiveness refusal of THE RAINMAKER AGENCY for "business management services, namely, sales management consulting services; marketing services, namely, providing independent sales representation; business development services"].
In re Pacific Coast Feather Company, Serial No. 85712273 (October 31, 2014) [not precedential]. [Mere descriptiveness refusal of STRETCHKNIT for "mattress pads"].
In re Sirius Products, Inc., Serial Nos. 85199591 and 85199615 (October 31, 2014) [not precedential]. [Mere descriptiveness refusal of WATERLESS BATH for "pet shampoo and conditioner" and for "medicated pet shampoo"].
In re Blue Lotus Lifestyle LLC, Serial No. 85937447 (October 30, 2014) [not precedential]. [Mere descriptiveness refusal of LOTUS for "drinking water with vitamins and botanicals"].
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog note: See any WYHAs here?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2014.