TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Section 2(e)(1) Mere Descriptiveness Appeals Turn Out?
Last week, the TTAB ruled on the appeals from the three Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusals summarized below. Let's see how you do with them. Results will be found in the first comment.
In re Eric Fessell, Serial No. 90263552 (August 4, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Elizabeth A. Dunn). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of MOTHER NATURE for books featuring a fictional hero, namely, Mother Nature (class 16); clothing (Class 25); and videos and animations of the fictional character, Mother Nature (Class 41).]
In re MVN Entertainment L.P., Serial No. 90047473 (August 4, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Frances S. Wolfson). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of POWER PONY for "Ride on toys and accessories therefor; Rideable toy vehicles; Ride on toys having a seating portion removably attached to an electrically powered wheeled device."]
In re Brumis Imports, Inc., Serial No. 90174988 (August 5, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Peter W. Cataldo). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of KTCHN. for kitchen knives and cutlery (Class 8) and for cookware, storage containers, kitchen tools, and the like (Class 9).]
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog comment: How did you do? See any WYHAs here?
posted by John L. Welch @ 8/11/2022
5 comments
5 Comments:
All three were affirmed. I would label all of them WYHAs.
Hi John, FYI, the link in the email and in the blog itself points to the comment section on a previous post.
I'd have overturned POWER PONY. It's suggestive for the goods claimed.
Hmmm. The email had the wrong link but the blog seems to have the right one.
My view:
MOTHER NATURE-affirmed in part reversed in part.
POWER PONY-reversed
KTCHN-affirmed
Post a Comment
<< Home