In re Injex Pharma AG, Serial No. 79119172 (December 22, 2014) [not precedential]. [Mere descriptiveness refusal of INJEX for a needle-free injection system.]
In re Whole Foods Market IP, L.P., Serial No. 85820807 (January 6, 2015) [not precedential]. [Refusal of COLLECTIVE CHEESE for, inter alia, cheese, dips, and spreads.]
In re Hollywood Stock Exchange, LLC, Serial No. 85775831 (January 9, 2015) [not precedential]. [Refusal of BOLLYWOOD STOCK EXCHANGE for, inter alia, providing an online prediction market game for trading virtual entertainment securities.]
Read comments and post your comment here
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2015.
The third one was reversed.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteSheesh. I usually do pretty well with these, but not today!!
I thought the reversed one was the most obviously descriptive mark. Perhaps it matters that I'm familiar w/ these "stock exchange" services or games that people play involving people instead of securities? In other words, I think younger consumers would readily identify this mark as descriptive.
The problem w/ the INJEX case, and it seems to have not been argued by the applicant, is that I don't think the mark will be perceived as "injects." It obviously plays off that word, but to my eyes and ears, the "x" v. "cts" spelling makes a difference in how I perceive the mark. I guess i would perceive the mark as suggestive because of this difference.
I would have thought, from my own opinion that only the third one should be sustained. The BOLLYWOOD mark is by far the most descriptive from my viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteI would have reversed both of the first two but would have guessed that the second one - "Collective Cheese" - would have gotten the TTAB nod, based on my pet theory that the identity of the applicant is the most important factor in their decisions.