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

So far this year, by my count, the TTAB has affirmed 31 of 33 Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness (or disclaimer) refusals. How do you think the three appeals summarized below came out? Results will be found in the first comment.

In re Sensory Path Inc., Serial No. 88667617 (May 31, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge David K. Heasley) [Requirement to disclaim the words THE SENSORY PATH in the mark shown below, for "interactive decals with permanent adhesive backing, designed for use by children to improve cognition and other skills."]

In re Skiposters.com, Serial No. 90239860 (June 2, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Deputy Chief Judge Mark A. Thurmon). [Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusal of SKIPOSTERS.COM, in slightly stylized form, for "On-line retail store services featuring photographs and artwork" and "Printing; Printing services."]

In re Radical Marketing LLC, Serial No. 90381196 (June 6, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Thomas W. Wellington). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of the proposed certification mark shown below, for "foods, beverages, and food products" (IRRITABLE BOWEL SYNDROME disclaimed).]

Read comments and post your comment here.

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

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2023.