By my estimation, somewhere around 80-85% of all Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusals that reach the TTAB are affirmed on appeal. Well, here are three appeals that were decided in the past week. One refusal was reversed. Which one, pray tell? [Answer will be found in first comment].
In re Russel Investments Group, Inc., Serial No. 86430210 (December 1, 2016) [not precedential]. [Refusal of AGENCY FX for, inter alia, “downloadable electronic publications, namely, reports, factsheets, booklets, newsletters, and brochures featuring information and data relating to currency analysis, currency investment, and evaluation of currency risks in the financial and investment field,” “currency brokerage services,” and “educational services in the financial and investment field”].
In re GP Global Limited, Serial No. 86285538 (December 2, 2016) [not precedential]. [Refusal of RAPID Line Integration for “Computer software for use in industrial automation manufacturing equipment, namely, application software and operator interface software used to integrate manufacturing line, equipment and controls”].
In re RiseSmart, Inc., Serial No. 86533730 (December 5, 2016) [not precedential]. [Refusal of SMARTMATCH for “Software as a service (SAAS) services, namely, software for conducting a job search”].
