LAIPLALAIPLA
LAIPLALAIPLA
  • About
    • About LAIPLA
    • Ambassador Outreach Program
    • Board of Directors
    • Committees
    • Administration
    • Member Firms and Companies
    • Past Presidents
    • Recent Past Presidents
    • Public Service Award
    • Diversity Fellowship
    • Bylaws
  • Events
  • Membership
  • Sponsorship
  • Contact
  • About
    • About LAIPLA
    • Ambassador Outreach Program
    • Board of Directors
    • Committees
    • Administration
    • Member Firms and Companies
    • Past Presidents
    • Recent Past Presidents
    • Public Service Award
    • Diversity Fellowship
    • Bylaws
  • Events
  • Membership
  • Sponsorship
  • Contact

Precedential No. 22: Appellee Fails To Address PTO Refusals, TTAB Affirms

August 26, 2016October 22, 2024| in The TTABlog| by John L. Welch

The Board affirmed the USPTO’s refusal to register the mark HEMP HOME HEALTH for “home health care services” because Applicants, in their appeal, failed to address the three grounds of refusal: mere descriptiveness or deceptive misdescriptiveness under Section 2(e)(1) and failure to respond to a Rule 2.61(b) request for information. In re Heather Harley and Carolyn Jones, Serial No. 86409857 (August 24, 2016) [precedential].

During prosecution, Examining Attorney Jeffrey J. Look issued the Section 2(e)(1) refusals and requested information under Rule 2.61: concerning the significance of HEMP as applied to the services, whether the services comply with the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”), and whether applicants will be using hemp-based products in their services. He twice issued advisories regarding a possible refusal based on the ground that the use of the applied-for mark would not be lawful. Applicants complied in part, but not fully, with the Rule 2.61 request, The Examining Attorney made the three refusals final.

In their appeal, applicants framed the issue as follows: “Can an Applicant’s lawful use of a trademark be denied for use in connection with legal goods because the Applicant also sells substances that my be illegal under the CSA?”[Actually, a refusal of registration has nothing to do with whether applicants may use the mark – ed.]. Applicants did not address the three grounds for refusal that were issued by the Examining Attorney.

The Board observed that applicant’s arguments “suggest that they are attempting to appeal a mere advisory statement made in the Examining Attorney’s Office Actions.” But an advisory action is not a refusal to register. The TTAB has jurisdiction only over “a final decision of the examiner in charge of the registration of marks.” See Lanham Act Section 20.

The filing of a notice of appeal has the effect of appealing all refusals or requirements made final. Applicants’ failure to address these refusals is a basis for affirming the refusal or registration on all grounds.

Therefore, the Board affirmed the refusals to register.

IP Blog Categories

  • Announcements
  • Events
  • LAIPLA News
  • The TTABlog
  • Uncategorized
  • Wegner's Top 10
  • Wegner's Writings

Archives

Previous

TTAB Test: Is “PRO.” (Stylized) Merely Descriptive of Architectural Services?

Next

Precedential No. 23: TTAB Affirms Refusal Of “pitchingsmart” Due To Faulty I.D. And Specimen


Since 1934, LAIPLA has been educating and connecting members of the local intellectual property legal community

Pages

About 
Events
Membership
Sponsorship
Contact
Privacy Policy

Search
Contact

LAIPLA
1621 W 25th Street
Box 633
San Pedro, CA 90732
Phone: (323) 285-1654
Fax: ( 310) 878-0517
Email: office@laipla.net

© 2025 Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association. All Rights Reserved | Website design by Arclight Digital.