Friday, November 16, 2012

Test Your TTAB Judge-Ability on These Three Section 2(e)(1) Refusals

The TTAB recently ruled on the appeals from the three Section 2(e)(1) refusals summarized below. Let's see how you do with them, keeping in mind that the Board affirms, in my estimate, more than 80% of these refusals. By the way, do you see any WYHA's here?

In re Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha, DBA Casio Computer Co., Ltd., Serial No. 77884436 (October 18, 2012) [not precedential]. [Mere descriptiveness refusal of PREMIUM AUTO for digital cameras].

In re William E. Gridley, Serial No. 85127536 (October 24, 2012) [not precedential]. [Mere descriptiveness refusal of BOAT VENT for "ventilators for covers, namely, vehicle covers, tarps, canopies, umbrellas" [BOAT disclaimed]].

In re Milo Shammas Serial No. 77758863 (October 25, 2012) [not precedential]. [Refusal to register PROBIOTIC for fertilizer on the ground of genericness (sic!) under Section 2(e)(1)].

Big TTABlog hint: They all came out the same way.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2012.


At 9:36 AM, Anonymous Joe Dreitler said...

Just a wild guess. All affirmed. Just a guess. Don't think I will bother to read the opinions though.
Not going to 2nd guess motives of reasons for appeal. Could be that recognition that without a registration they had no chance of stopping generic use by competitors, someone is unfairly competing and they wanted to sue, lots of reasons, but results are fairly predictable

At 10:14 AM, Anonymous Jennifer Lefere said...

Probiotic is generic term for fertilizer - tell that to cosmetic manufacturers putting it in face creams! Why discuss acquired distinctiveness if term is generic?


Post a Comment

<< Home