TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Section 2(e)(1) Mere Descriptiveness Appeals Turn Out?
Recently, the TTAB ruled on the appeals from the three Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusals summarized below. Let's see how you do with them. Results will be found in the first comment.
In re Innova Electronics Corporation, Serial No. 90174255 (September 21, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Michael B. Adlin). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of CARAI for vehicle diagnostic software and SAAS. Applicant argued that, while CARAI may mean "artificial intelligence for automobiles," it is "too broad to describe these goods with any immediacy or particularity."]
In re Lakshmi Distributors, Serial No. 90174273 (September 27, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Thomas W. Wellington). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of CSTORE "wholesale store services featuring tobacco products." Applicant argued that CSTORE is not descriptive because "when an average consumer sees/hears CSTORE, perhaps a convenience store might come to mind, but wholesale store services featuring tobacco products do not."]
In re Celmatrix Corp., Serial No. 90244935 (September 29, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Cindy B. Greenbaum). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of HAIR WATER for "hair care preparations." Applicant proposed an amendment of the identification of goods to "Hair care preparations, namely, liquid nutritional supplements for the promotion of hair health; hair care preparations, namely, powdered nutritional supplements for the promotion of hair health; dietary liquids and supplements for improving health of hair."]
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog comment: How did you do? See any WYHAs here?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2022.
posted by John L. Welch @ 10/11/2022
3 comments
3 Comments:
All three refusals were affirmed. Amendment of HAIR WATER identification was refused.
CARAI is not descriptive if use as one word. As a consumer, I would not relate CARAI to be commonly use in the industry or even describe the product and services. The mark is CARAI not CAR and AI. The Applicant should conduct a consumer test whether CARAI is in fact a descriptor of CAR and AI.
Regarding the CARAI decision, the application’s drawing page displays the proposed mark as CarAi. I think that makes it obvious that the applicant intends for the mark to be Car AI which is descriptive.
Post a Comment
<< Home