TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Genericness Appeals Turn Out?

The TTAB recently ruled on the appeals from the three genericness refusals summarized below. Let's see how you do with them. Results will be found in the first comment.

In re Responsiveads, Inc., Serial No. 88453313 (September 30, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Melanye K. Johnson). [Refusal to register RESPONSIVEADS for advertising, marketing and promotional services and for marketing software. Applicant argued, inter alia, that "a 'responsive ad' is an outcome, not the service or tool creating that outcome," and that "Applicant cannot create responsive ads for its customers without the customers’ content."]

 
David Alpan DDS MSD Ltd., Serial No. 90078211 (September 27, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Elizabeth A. Dunn) [Refusal to register AESTHETIC ORTHODONITCS for "orthodontics services." Applicant argued, inter alia, that even if the term were generic for orthodontic services for cosmetic purposes, Applicant’s services are not limited to those services and so the term is not generic as applied to its non-cosmetic orthodontic services.]

In re Natural Cravings Pet Treats LLC, Serial No. 88785786 (September 19, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Peter W. Cataldo) [Refusal to register BEEF CHEEK for "Edible treats and chews for pets." Applicant argued that its BEEF CHEEK products "are not comprised entirely of the cheeks from cows and instead are made out of head skin, which is the skin from the face of a cow that does not include the cheek.”]

Read comments and post your comment here.

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

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2022.