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

The TTAB recently 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In re David Shokrian M.D., Serial No. 88417120 (February 13, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Cindy B. Greenbaum). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of MILLENNIAL AESTHETIC SURGERY for "Surgery; Cosmetic surgery services; Cosmetic and plastic surgery; Plastic surgery; Plastic surgery services" (AESTHETIC SURGERY disclaimed). Applicant argued that the proposed mark is suggestive because 'millennial' has meanings other than as a reference to people born in the 1980s and early 1990s.]

In re Wave Neuroscience, Inc., Serial No. 88796139 (February 16, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Jonathan Hudis) [Mere descriptiveness refusal of WAVE NEURO for medical products and services relating to the analysis and treatment of neurological disorders. Applicant argued that the term WAVE is suggestive because it has multiple meanings, connotations or commercial impressions, noting that several businesses in Southern California have the word WAVE in their names.]

In re Le Manoir Sainte-Catherine Inc., Serial No. 88265092 (February 23, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Elizabeth A. Dunn). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of GELCARE for, inter alia, nail gel, gel nail polish, and preparations for removing gel nails. Applicant contended that the term CARE "is nebulous and is arguably suggestive," and even if descriptive, "the combination of the terms GEL and CARE is not merely descriptive."]

Read comments and post your comment here.

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

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2022.