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

The TTAB recently ruled on the appeals from the 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In re Alpha Link Trading Ltd., Serial No. 88617904 (August 5, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cheryl S. Goodman). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of BLOOD SUGAR PREMIER for "dietary supplements." Applicant argued that "the notion that blood sugar is first [in importance] is nonsensical" since blood sugar can be "high," "low" or "okay," and the notion that blood sugar is first has no relationship to or in any way describes the goods.]

In re Liebherr-Werk Biberach GmbH, Serial No. 79271097 (August 10, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Jonathan Hudis). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of FIBRE for, inter alia, "cranes of all kinds, in particular, rotating tower cranes, truck-mounted cranes, ship cranes, container cranes, mobile harbour cranes, crawler cranes, stacker cranes" and "support systems for mobile cranes." Although conceding that fibre rope is a specific type of rope that can be used with its goods, applicant contended that "[t]here is at least one degree of separation, one mental leap, required for consumers to take the descriptive meaning attributed to FIBRE when they see FIBRE in connection with machinery and cranes, and there are other reasonable interpretations of FIBRE in connection with machinery and cranes which do not involve taking this mental leap."]

 

In re Advanced Nutritional Supplements, Serial No. 88766676 (August 13, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Jonathan Hudis). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of  QUAD-MASS for "dietary and nutritional supplements." Applicant challenged the Internet articles made of record by the examining attorney as having low probative value, because the Board may consider "these hearsay articles" only for what they say on their face but not for the truth of what is stated in them, and (2) no proof was submitted regarding consumer exposure to the articles.]

Read comments and post your comment here.

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

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2021.