Monday, July 13, 2020

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

The TTAB recently decided the appeals from three Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusals summarized below. Let's see how you do with them, keeping in mind that last year the Board  affirmed, by my calculation, about 93% these refusals. Answer(s) will be found in the first comment.

In re World Economic Forum, Application Serial No. 79249902 (July 6, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christopher Larkin). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of 4IR for publications, consulting services, social networking services, and educational services. The Examining Attorney maintained that 4IR is a recognized abbreviation for "Fourth Industrial Revolution"].

In re Lifestyle Enterprises, Inc., Application Serial No. 87952218 (July 8, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Michael B. Adlin). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of DIVANY for "furniture," Applicant argued, and the Board agreed, that the doctrine of foreign equivalents did not apply.]

In re Synergy One Lending, Inc., Serial No. 88063190 (July 10, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Thomas W. Wellington). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of RETIREMENT FUNDING SOLUTIONS (in standard characters) for "Financial services, namely, mortgage lending services" [RETIREMENT FUNDING disclaimed]]. Applicant argued that taking out a mortgage is not "funding."]

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog comment: See any WYHAs here?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2020.


At 6:55 AM, Blogger John L. Welch said...

all three refusals were affirmed.


Post a Comment

<< Home