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

So far this year, the Board has affirmed more than 90% of the Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusals reviewed on appeal. Here are three more. How do you think they came out? [Results in first comment].

In re DMG Mori Co., Serial No. 79317839 (March 5, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Mark A. Thurmon). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of GEAR PROFILER for "Metalworking machines and machine tools, and their structural parts" and for "Computers; downloadable and recorded computer software for controlling and monitoring tools of metalworking machine tools for use in connection with metalworking machine tools; computer peripheral devices; laser measuring systems; scanners." Applicant argued that the mark does not directly describe "metalworking machines and machines tools, computers, laser measuring systems, or scanners, much less with the requisite level of particularity required to support a ‘merely descriptive’ refusal.”]

In re Roto-Mix LLC, Serial No. 90862644 (March 6, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Wendy B. Cohen) [Refusal to register AUTO-FEED for “agricultural machines, namely, motorized-vehicle-based automated and semi-automated livestock feed dispensers for livestock feeding trucks and systems" and for "land vehicles, namely, automated feed delivery vehicles." Applicant maintained that "'feed' has a double meaning–both as sustenance for animals and as supplying a consumable within a machine . . . meaning the term is not merely descriptive" and that "'auto' could be a shortened version of automatic but also a reference for an automobile and thus, the proposed mark requires '[s]everal mental steps' to determine what the coined term suggests about the goods and that the mark may be suggestive."]

In re Low Carbon Technologies LLC, Serial No. 88632729 (March 15, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Mark Lebow) [Mere descriptiveness refusal of the proposed certification mark LOW CARBON BEEF for "beef processing." Applicant argud that its services "do not evaluate 'carbon emissions' or specific characteristics of beef itself" and instead "certify numerous steps of beef processing and whether or not they meet numerous, non-obvious criteria that are part of its certification proceeding to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions."]

Read comments and post your comment here.

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

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2024.