TTAB Test: Which One of these Mere Descriptiveness Refusals Was Reversed?
By my estimation, somewhere around 85% of all Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusals that go to final decision at the TTAB are affirmed. Well, here are four appeals that were recently decided. One was reversed. Which one, pray tell? Do you see any WYHA?'s here? [Answer in first comment].
In re Fuel Industries, Inc., Serial No. 86185707 (March 18, 2016) [not precedential]. [Refusal of BRODDCAST for "Multimedia software for digital content creation of entertainment videos using electronic media; multimedia software for digital video recording, editing and playback of videos; multimedia software for digital recording, editing and playback of entertainment videos; downloadable software for digital recording, editing and playback of entertainment videos"].
In re Silhouette America, Inc., Serial No. 86228926 (March 1, 2016) [not precedential]. [Refusal of PIXSCAN for "Computer software for use in capturing images and operating cutting machines, cutters, and plotters for cutting textile, paper, and cardstock in sheet or roll form in the field of crafts" and "Cutting mats for capturing images from which designs for cutting machines for textile, paper and cardstock are generated"].
In re Lawrence Foods, Inc., Serial No. 86256664 (March 3, 2016) [not precedential]. [Refusal of CHOCOLATE GLAÇAGE "icing and glazes for cakes, pies, donuts, and bakery goods"].
In re Paradise Mountain Organic Estate Coffee Ltd., Serial No. 86407960 (February 24, 2016) [not precedential]. [Disclaimer requirement of THE WORLD'S MOST SUSTAINABLE in the mark shown below for coffee, tea, and related products].
Read comments and post your comment here.
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2016.