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

The TTAB recently ruled on 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 the Board affirms, by my calculation, some 90% of these refusals. Answer(s) will be found in the first comment.


In re Healthy Brands LLC, Serial No. 88101117 (October 6, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Marc A. Bergsman). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of HEALTHY BRANDS for "cosmetics." Applicant maintained that the proposed mark "does not convey any particular function, characteristic, attribute, or use of the associated products because there is no general agreement as to what constitutes a 'healthy' cosmetic."]

In re Appian Corporation, Serial No. 87890076 (October 14, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cheryl S. Goodman). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of INTELLIGENT CONTACT CENTER for "Computer software development tools; Computer software for application and database integration; Computer software for use in customer relationship management (CRM); Computer telephony software; Digital telephone platforms and software in International Class 9" and for "Software design and development; Business technology software consultation services; Computer software consultancy; Computer software development; Customizing computer software; Design, development and implementation of software; Maintenance of computer software in International Class 42." Applicant argued that a "'contact center’ is 'a physical location out of which customer service operations are handled or an organizational business unit that is responsible for handling customer service operations,''' whereas applicant "sells a software platform, not a physical location or a customer service department."]In re Shimano North America Holding, Inc., Serial No. 88185346 (October 16, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cindy B. Greenbaum). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of FLAT-SIDE for fishing lures. Applicant maintained that the proposed mark is suggestive of the identified fishing lures because the goods feature two sides that are curved, and neither side is flat.]

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog comment: How did you do? See any WYHAs here?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2020.