TTABlog Test: Three More Section 2(e)(1) Mere Descriptiveness Appeals - How Did They Turn Out?
So far this year the Board affirmed a whopping 96% of the Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusals reviewed on appeal. Here are three recent appeals. How do you think they came out? [Answer in first comment].
In re Concert Black LLC, Serial No. 97921491(August 18, 2026) [Opinion by Judge George C. Pologeorgis]. [Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusal of CONCERT BLACK for various clothing items "excluding formalwear, concert attire, uniforms, concert band uniforms, marching band uniforms, robes, gowns, choir robes, tuxedos, and any other clothing specifically designed for use in musical performances." Applicant argued that its goods are street wear and therefore cannot be used to create a "concert black" outfit, particularly since it has excluded formal wear from its identification of goods.]
In re The Carlstar Group LLC, Serial No. 98674193 (August 18, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Jennifer L. Elgin). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of SP-Y-KE for "Tractor towed agricultural implements, namely, closing wheels; closing wheels for use with agricultural seed planting machines; tractor towed agricultural implements, namely, spiked closing wheel." Applicant maintained that the mark is a double entendre: the intentional misspelling together with the hyphenation to isolate the “Y” represents an obvious play on the intended result of a closing wheel, which is the growth of a plant (the “Y”) from a furrow (the hyphenation).]
In Re Technip Energies France, Serial No. 79355823 (August 19, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Mark A. Thurmon). [Refusal to register the mark shown below, absent a disclaimer of the merely descriptive term E.FURNACE, for "Apparatus, namely, industrial electric ovens and gas purification installations for the production of ethylene, propylene, butadiene, benzene, toluene, xylene, hydrogen, vinyl chloride monomers, with low carbon dioxide emissions; apparatus and installations for the production of ethylene, propylene, butadiene, benzene, toluene, xylene, hydrogen, vinyl chloride monomers, with low carbon content." Applicant argues that the even if the term E.FURNACE must be disclaimed because of the electric ovens in the identification, the term is not merely descriptive of the “gas purification installations” also listed as part of the first goods identified in the application.]
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog comment: How did you do? See any WYHA?s
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.






3 Comments:
All three decisions were affirmed
The USPTO these days: "everything is descriptive."
I thought the SP-Y-KE case might have been overturned. I think the mark is suggestive and not merely descriptive, but that's just me!!
Post a Comment
<< Home