Thursday, January 29, 2015

TTAB Test: Which One of These Three Mere Descriptiveness Refusals Was Reversed?

Here are three recent appeals from mere descriptiveness refusals under Section 2(e)(1). One of them was reversed. Let's see how you do in the role of TTAB judge. [Answer in first comment].

In re Metropolis, Inc., Serial No. 85847276 (January 16, 2015) [not precedential]. [Mere descriptiveness refusal of SOCIAL VENUE for "night clubs" and "restaurant services"].

In re Angel Medical Systems, Inc., Serial No. 85797225 (January 23, 2015) [not precedential]. [Mere descriptiveness refusal of CARDIAC CONCIERGE for "medical services; providing medical information on-line via the internet and telephone; providing healthcare information by telephone and electronic communications and coordinating the provision of healthcare information by others; providing a data base in the field of healthcare and featuring inputting and collection of data and information all for treatment and diagnostic purposes"].

In re WhiteWave Services, Inc., Serial No. 86008622 (January 27, 2015) [not precedential]. [Mere descriptiveness refusal of  CLASSICMAC for "macaroni and cheese"].

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog note: How did you do? See any WYHAs here?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2015.


At 5:50 AM, Blogger John L. Welch said...

The CLASSICMAC refusal was reversed.

At 8:36 AM, Blogger Lance said...

I would have guessed the first one. It's far less descriptive than CLASSICMAC in my opinion.

At 9:23 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

They're all merely descriptive.

At 10:38 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In the Classicmac case, once again the Board does the third party registration anti-applicant shuffle. They consider the examining attorney's third party registration evidence and give it due regard. However, when the applicant uses the same source of information they dismiss it with the each case must be determined on its own facts and they are not bound by the decision of prior examining attorneys.

I'm getting kind of sick of that approach. Either this stuff is relevant or it isn't, and it should not matter which side presents the evidence. If the examining attorney can use third party registrations then applicant should be entitled to do the same.

I'm surprised that the board reversed this one.

At 12:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow; that was the one I pegged as a WYHA.


Post a Comment

<< Home