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

Last year the Board affirmed about 88% of the Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusals reviewed on appeal. So far this year, the rate is well over 90%. Here are three recent appeals. How do you think they came out? [Answer in first comment].

In re Learn 2 Read Read 2 Learn LLC, Serial No. 99176400 (July 30, 2026) [Opinion by Judge Robert Lavache]. [Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusal of WORD BANK: WORD LEARNING PROGRAM for educational publications and services provided in the field of early literacy and vocabulary instruction. Applicant argued that the proposed mark "does not instantly describe Applicant’s proprietary literacy platform" because "[i]t does not tell a consumer what the system is, how it works, what materials it uses, or how it delivers instruction."]

In re Evan Jordan Maisano, Serial No. 99276833 (August 12, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Robert Lavache). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of MAGNETBALL for "action skill games." Applicant maintained that "[a] consumer encountering the term MAGNETBALL would not immediately know what the sport involves without further explanation," which "places the mark squarely in the suggestive, not descriptive, category."]

In Re Benjamin Langhofer, Serial No. 98693560 (August 13, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Wendy B. Cohen). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of FAMILY HANDBOOK for "downloadable documents in the field of custom documents designed by parents to establish and memorialize the purpose and direction of their family." Applicant contended that "a consumer would understand FAMILY HANDBOOK to mean a handbook about childcare or parenting techniques."]

Read comments and post your comment here.

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

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.