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. Answer will be found in the first comment.
In re UDP Labs, Inc., Serial No. 88573702 (September 8, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Peter W. Cataldo). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of BED METRICS (in standard characters, METRICS disclaimed) for "Computer hardware; downloadable computer software for the collection, processing, analysis, measuring, monitoring, tracking and distribution of biometric data; electronic sensors for monitoring movement, respiration, and heart rate," and "Software as a Service (SaaS) services featuring software for the collection, processing, analysis, measuring, monitoring, tracking and distribution of biometric data." Applicant conceded that the mark "is immediately descriptive of goods or services that measure a bed," but it argued that the mark "does not tell the user the goods collect biometric data from a person, analyze it and provide health recommendations."]
In re Deirdre C. Glascoe, Serial No. 88374879 (September 13, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cynthia C. Lynch). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF GOD in standard characters for “Scientific research." Applicant maintained that the proposed mark "is not about humans studying GOD, it’s about GOD studying human behavior, encoding His study results in His logo – the mark, SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF GOD…."]
In re DRYPZ, LLC, Serial No. 88711363 (September 13, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Thomas Shaw). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of DRYPZ, in standard characters, for "Therapeutic services, namely, intravenous hydration therapy, intravenous electrolyte replacement therapy, intravenous vitamin infusion therapy, intravenous hangover alleviation therapy, intravenous amino acid therapy, intravenous micronutrient therapy, intramuscular vitamin therapy, lipotropic injection therapy, oxygen therapy, wellness treatments in the nature of therapeutic intravenous drip services and booster shots." Applicant argued that the proposed mark "is suggestive because DRYPZ “could involve several different products or services, such as plumbing, coffee shops, irrigations systems, and fashion."]
Read comments and post your comment here.
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2021.
posted by John L. Welch @ 9/17/2021
5 comments
5 Comments:
Al three refusals were affirmed
For the DRYPZ application, I really wish people would stop wasting time by saying, "But the mark means all of these other things in these other contexts!" How many times does the Board have to say that descriptiveness is determined by considering the mark in relation to the goods/services at issue, not in the abstract? It's getting to the point that when applicants make this argument, it's a sure sign that they know their marks are descriptive.
I agree. On another subject, a scientific study was recently conducted which demonstrated that Rudy Guiliani is a drip.
How about this?
When the letter ‘s’ is after an unvoiced consonant such as "p"; it is pronounced as an /s/ sound.
When the letter ‘s’ is after a vowel or a voiced consonant, it is pronounced as a /z/ sound. For example, houZing and starZ are phonetic equivalents to houSing and starS.
But the ‘s’ in "drips" would has an /s/ sound. So "dripZ" should not be deemed a phonetic equivalent of dripS.
All three decisions are in order. The "trademarks" are either descriptive or deceptive on my take according to Australian Law (admittedly a different jurisdiction)
Post a Comment
<< Home