TTABlog Test: Which of These Three Mere Descriptiveness Refusals Was/Were Reversed?

The TTAB recently decided the appeals from the three Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness (or disclaimer) refusals summarized below. At least one of them was reversed. Let's see how you do with them. Answer(s) will be found in the first comment.


In re MCM Industries, LLC, Application Serial No. 88380496 (March 4, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Thomas W. Wellington). [Section 6 requirement for disclaimer of "JEWELED" in the mark JEWELED LULLABY for jewelry. The examining attorney submitted dictionary definitions of "jeweled" as well as marketplace evidence showing the term used descriptively in connection with jewelry by several third parties.]

In re The Trustees of the Crown Acquisitions Discretionary Trust, Serial No. 88666035 (March 9, 2021)[not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Marc A. Bergsman). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of THE LUXURY COLLECTIVE for "Bed sheets; Blanket throws; Burp cloths; Comforters; Mattress pads; Sleeping bags for babies; Swaddling blankets; Bed blankets; Lap blankets" [LUXURY disclaimed]. Applicant argued that the proposed mark not merely descriptive because the composite term does not describe any component of bedding ]

In re JHR Entertainment, LLC, Application Serial No. 88286556 (March 9, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christopher Larkin). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of MUSICAL TUSHIES for musical greeting cards [MUSICAL disclaimed]. Applicant argued that "[w]hen the terms of the mark are combined, the term 'musical' becomes an adjective for 'tushies'" and no longer describes a greeting card per se, and that a “consumer must then assess what ‘musical tushies’ are.”].

Read comments and post your comment here.

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

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2021.