TTABlog Test: Which of These Three Section 2(e)(1) Mere Descriptiveness Refusals Was/Were Reversed?

By my count, the Board has affirmed 40 of the first 44 Section 2(e)(1) refusals that it reviewed this year. Here are three more. At least one was reversed. How do you think these three cases came out? [Results in first comment].

In re Riverence Holdings LLC, Serial No. 90674544 (August 14, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cheryl S. Goodman). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of BREEDING FOR VIGOR for “Fish, live” and “Agricultural services, namely, the cultivation and breeding of plants or animals in a water environment." Applicant argued that the terms “breeding” and “vigor” each have multiple meanings, and therefore Applicant’s mark “cannot as a composite be merely descriptive."]

In re Molina Healthcare, Inc., Serial Nos. 90887104 and 90887134 (August 18, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Robert H. Coggins) [Refusals to register MY HEALTH PERKS and MOLINA MY HEALTH PERKS for "Providing information in the fields of health and wellness," absent a disclaimer of "HEALTH PERKS." Applicant maintained that the evidence of record - a dictionary definition of “perk” and an excerpt from Applicant’s website - was insufficient to support the disclaimer requirement.]

In re Randy Wayne White, Serial No. 90758882 (August 22, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Frances S. Wolfson) [Mere descriptiveness refusal of YUCATAN SHRIMP for "prepared food, namely, shrimp, not live." Applicant contended that its YUCATAN SHRIMP recipe is uniquely identified as “originating with the Applicant."] 

 
Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog comment: How did you do? See any WYHA?s

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2023.