TTABlog Test: How did these three simple description calls from section 2(e)(1) turn out? – Intellectual property


United States: TTABlog Test: How did these three simple description calls from section 2(e)(1) turn out?

To print this article, all you need to do is be registered or log in to Mondaq.com.

The TTAB recently ruled on appeals of the three section 2(e)(1) denials of simple description summarized below. Let’s see how you do with them. The answer will be in the first comment.

1183556a.jpg

In re ProBody Scandinaviaserial number 87771075 (April 1, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion of Judge Angela Lykos). [Mere descriptiveness refusal
of FASHIONSUPPORT for, inter
alia
, compression garments, and compression socks for medical
or therapeutic use. Applicant contended that the proposed mark
“is suggestive in relation to the identified goods because the
juxtaposition of the two words requires the consumer to engage in
multi-step reasoning since ‘some degree of thought or
imagination is required to understand that Applicant’s goods
involve compression bandages or compression socks.'”]

1183556b.JPG

In re Headspace Meditation Limitedserial number 79281613 (March 30, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion of Judge Thomas Shaw). [Mere descriptiveness refusal
of SLEEPCAST for “Audio recordings
featuring fictional stories to be used for purposes of meditation,
relaxation and sleep-induction.” Applicant asserted that the
proposed mark is not merely descriptive because “[t]The SLEEPCAST ​​trademark does not describe the recordings offered under the trademark with any degree of particularity,” pointing out that the evidence for the Examiner’s Sleep Podcast includes genres such as bedtime stories, meditation, science sleep, relaxing sounds, hypnosis and Bible stories.]

1183556c.JPG

In re Biogena GmbH & Co.serial number 79285012 (March 7, 2022) [not precedential] (Review by Marc A. Bergsman). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of 3-SALT
ZINC
 for dietary supplements. Applicant argued that
the purchasing public is unaware of the technical meaning of the
term “salt,” and will perceive “salt” as being
“sodium chloride,” “even though there is no sodium
chloride in the zinc supplements. Therefore, the purchasing public
will have to exercise a multiple step reasoning process to decipher
the meaning of 3-SALT ZINC.”]

1183556d.jpg

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog comment: How did you do? Do you see any WYHAs here?

The TTABlog

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide on the subject. Specialist advice should be sought regarding your particular situation.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: United States Intellectual Property

Brand comparison guide

Obhan & Associates

Trademark comparison guide for the jurisdiction of India, see our comparison guides section to compare across multiple countries