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 88% of these refusals. Answer(s) will be found in the first comment.


In re L-Nutra, Inc., Application Serial No. 88171365 (May 12, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christpher Larkin). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of FASTING BAR for "Nutritionally balanced prepared meals for medical use consisting primarily of grains, nuts and vegetables; nutritional meal replacement snacks adapted for medical use." Applicant argued that, in view of the dictionary definition of "fast," the proposed mark is an oxymoron because “an individual cannot simultaneously fast and eat – it is one or the other,”]

In re Cybeye, Inc., Application Serial No. 88587327 (May 24, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Linda A. Kuczma). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of LIVE24 for "Downloadable mobile application providing a live streaming-based AMA (Ask-Me-Anything) crowd knowledge platform." Applicant argued that there are 19 definitions of the word "live" and the number '24' alone is not merely descriptive of anything.]

In re Quizzit, Inc., Serial No. 88522349 (May 24, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cynthia C. Lynch). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of POST. VOTE. SHOP. for downloadable mobile applications for conducting polls and opinion surveys. Applicant asserted "[t]he non-standard presentation of POST. VOTE. SHOP. as three verbs separated by periods creates a unique impression in the minds of consumers," and that the "use of verbs and the use of punctuation in the applied-for mark in fact unite the mark."]

Read comments and post your comment here.

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

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2021.