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

TTABlog Test: How Did These Four Appeals From Mere Descriptiveness Refusals Turn Out?

March 23, 2020April 16, 2020| in The TTABlog| by John L. Welch
The TTAB recently ruled on the appeals from the four Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusals summarized below. Let’s see how you do with them, keeping in mind that the Board affirms, by my calculation, some 90% of these refusals. Answer(s) will be found in the first comment.

In re DeSean Ramsey DBA BearArms Bracelets, Serial No. 87708731 (March 18, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cindy B. Greenbaum). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of BULLET BRACELET for “Bracelets; Bracelets made of paracord; Jewelry” [BRACELET disclaimed]. Applicant argued that its goods are made from spent (fired) or empty pistol shell casings and paracord, rather than actual bullets.].

In re ZF Friedrichshafen AG, Application Serial No. 79231720 (March 17, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Angela Lykos). [Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusal of SOUND.AI for “Sensors for detecting sound waves; electronic control and regulating apparatus for operating motor vehicles; driver assistance systems for motor vehicles, based on the detection of sound waves; computer hardware and software for operating motor vehicles.” Applicant pointed out the lack of evidence of third-party use of “sound” and “AI” together to describe any goods or services.].

In re Night Shift Brewing, Inc., Application Serial No. 87321948 (March 17, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge David K. Heasley). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of  BEAN PORTER for “beer; porter.” Applicant maintained that the mark is a double entendre because “the word BEAN evokes the city of Boston (oft nicknamed ‘Beantown’), as it is located in Everett, Massachusetts, on the outskirts of the greater Boston metropolitan area, and uses BEAN PORTER in collaboration with Bean Snowboards, also located in the Boston area.”].

In re Acacia Group LLC, Serial No. 87422774 (March 17, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Jonathan Hudis). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of REPOETF in the stylized form shown below, for various financial and advisory services. Applicant asserted, inter alia, that the stylization of its mark, with the “ETF” portion appearing like a mathematical exponent, makes it merely suggestive].

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog comment: See any WYHAs here?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2020.

IP Blog Categories

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

Archives

Previous

TTAB Affirms Section 2(e)(5) Functionality Refusal of Bathtub Drain Cap Configuration

Next

TTABlog Test: Three Recent Section 2(d) Appeals – How Did They Come Out?


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.