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

So far this year, the Board has affirmed just over 86% of the Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusals reviewed on appeal. That's a bit lower than the historical rate. How do you think these three recent decisions came out? [Answer is in first comment].

In re Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II, Serial No. 97173591 (November 6, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge (Opinion by Judge Wendy B. Cohen).) [Mere descriptiveness refusal of HANDS FREE STEP-INS for "footwear." Applicant argued that HANDS FREE and STEP-INS "are the desired results of the user experience when donning footwear,” and the terms describe the user, not the goods.]

In re MDFT International, Inc., Serial No. 97004153 (December 3, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Karen S. Kuhlke). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of MULTIDIMENSIONAL FAMILY THERAPY for "mental health therapy services." Applicant overcame a genericness refusal.]

In re Darex, LLC, Serial No. 97623103 (December 4, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Robert Lavache) [Mere descriptiveness refusal of PRECISION ADJUST for "“Knife sharpeners; replacement parts for hand operated knife sharpeners; accessories for hand operated knife sharpeners, namely, specially adapted carry cases, sharpening rods, rod holders, and hand strops." Applicant argued that the term is at most suggestive: "whether PRECISION operates as a noun or adjective, its unorthodox combination with the verb ADJUST would cause relevant purchasers to mentally pause and engage in a multi-stage reasoning process to determine how the proposed mark relates to the identified goods."]

Read comments and post your comment here.

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

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2024.