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

Here are three recent decisions under the mere descriptiveness prong of Section 2(e)(1): one opposition and two ex parte appeals. How do you think they came out? Answers will be found in the first comment.

In re LuxAGe Group, Inc., Serial No. 90726664 (July 27, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Peter W. Cataldo) [Mere descriptiveness refusal of GREY MARKET for "Entertainment services, namely, production and distribution of shows and podcasts in the nature of a behind-the-scenes look at how an international distributor and retailer of high-end watches and jewelry operates."]

USA Marble, LLC v. StoneHardscapes, LLC, Opposition No. 91267234 (August 1, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cynthia C. Lynch). [Opposition to registration of CREMA BELLA for "pavers; paver tiles," on the ground of mere descriptiveness. The applicant stated that “[t]he English translation of ‘CREMA BELLA’ in the mark is ‘BEAUTIFUL CREAM.’”]

In re S. Kechri and CO G.P. with the distinctive title Doriki Potopoiia, Serial No. 79310949 (August 1, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Mark Lebow). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of the proposed mark KECHRIBARI for "wines." The applicant stated that KECHRIBARI translates to English as "amber."]

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog comment: How did you do?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2023.