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

So far this year, the Board has affirmed just over 90% of the Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusals reviewed on appeal. Here are three more. How do you think they came out? [Results in first comment].

In re Stephen Van Eynde, Serial No. 90814404 (July 10, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Michael B. Adlin). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of BRKFST KRSPS for breakfast foods, including cereal.]

In re VOTEAPP, Inc., Serial No. 90774555 (July 10, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Martha B. Allard) [Refusal to register VOTEAPP for, inter alia, "Software as a service (SAAS) services featuring software in the field of voting for government, corporate, and consumer use, namely, software that enables users securely, transparently, quickly, and accurately to record ballots and track election results."]

In re Gabriel Sezanayev, Serial No. 90641384 (July 8, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Martha B. Allard) [Mere descriptiveness refusal of the proposed mark THE ORIGINAL PINEAPPLE for “Alcoholic beverages, namely, distilled spirits, cocktails from distilled spirits, liqueurs."]

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog comment: How did you do? See any WYHA?s

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2024.