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

Last year the Board has affirmed about 88% of the Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusals reviewed on appeal, slightly lower than the historical rate. Here are three recent appeals. How do you think they came out? You might respond by asking, what was the evidence? Well, give it a try anyway. [Answer in first comment].

In re Navico Group Americas LLC, Serial No. 97646216 (February 13, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Robert Lavache). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of DEPTH ROUTING for "Downloadable computer software designed for use with electronic marine multifunction display interfaces that provides customized autopilot navigation within a region; Recorded computer software that provides customized autopilot navigation within a region, sold as a component feature of electronic marine multifunction display interface hardware" [ROUTING disclaimed]. Applicant argued that the mark is “at least suggestive” [sic!], pointing to the definitions of the component terms and asserting that "DEPTH could relate to the depth of anything" and that "ROUTING has several definitions which could be relevant given [Applicant’s] goods."]

In re SMP Logic Systems, LLC, Serial No. 97622112 (February 13, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge David K. Heasley). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of INDUSTRIAL CLOUD for “Cloud computing featuring software for use in the design and design consultation of pharmaceutical manufacturing systems; Providing on-line, non-downloadable, Internet-based software applications for operating pharmaceutical manufacturing enterprises." [CLOUD disclaimed]. Applicant contended that the mark is merely suggestive because "even a cursory view of the Applicant’s goods and services in IC042 bear no resemblance to the common definition of the literal element CLOUD. *** [I]n totality, the words INDUSTRIAL CLOUD 'require imagination, thought, or perception to reach a conclusion as to the nature of those goods or services.'"]

In re Critical Response Group, Inc., Serial No. 97609317 (February 13, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Angela Lykos). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of MICRO GRID SQUARE LABEL for "Downloadable geospatially accurate graphics, maps and site plans used to coordinate security personnel and first responders; Printable geospatially accurate graphics, maps and site plans used to coordinate security personnel and first responders" and for "Printed geospatially accurate graphics, maps and site plans used to coordinate security personnel and first responders." Applicant maintained that because its mark does not "directly inform a prospective purchaser of a quality or characteristic of the goods – namely maps – offered by Applicant, but merely refers to labels," it is not merely descriptive.]

Read comments and post your comment here.

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

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.