TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Appeals from 2(e)(1) Mere Descriptiveness Refusals Turn Out?

The TTAB recently decided the appeals from three Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusals summarized below. Let's see how you do with them, keeping in mind that last year the Board  affirmed, by my calculation, about 93% of these refusals. Answer(s) will be found in the first comment.



In re Sporting Soles, Inc., Application Serial No. 87892535 (August 7, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christen M. English). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of SPORTING SOLES for retail stores featuring sporting goods. Applicant contended that its mark is a double entendre.].

In re Robert Castro, Application Serial No. 87435626 (August 7, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Angela Lykos). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of POSITIVE MENTAL ATTITUDE for educational materials and consulting services in the field of sales. Applicant argued that the mark is incongruous.]

In re Port Authority of New York and New Jersey., Serial No. 88005756 (August 10, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Karen Kuhlke). [Requirement of disclaimer of COMMONS in the mark ONE WORLD COMMONS for providing facilities for business meetings and business events and for food and meal delivery services.  Applicant maintained that the word "commons" is tied to a piece of land, whereas its services are provided "high above the streets of Manhattan."]

Read comments and post your comment here.

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

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2020.