The TTAB recently decided the appeals from the three Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusals summarized below. Let’s see how you do with them, keeping in mind that last year the Board affirmed, by my calculation, about 9 out of 10 of these refusals. Answer(s) will be found in the first comment.
In re Junk Bros. LLC, Application Serial No. 88175907 (January 15, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Jonathan Hudis). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of JUNK BROS. (in standard characters) for “junk, trash and debris removal.” Applicant argued that “JUNK BROS. . . . serves as a double entendre because it describes brothers who are cheap, shoddy, or worthless.”]
In re Ivani, LLC, Serial No. 88354318 (January 15, 2021)[not precedential] (Opinion by Judge David K. Heasley). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of NETWORK PRESENCE SENSING for “computer hardware and downloadable computer firmware to analyze data to detect human presence within an area.” Applicant asserted that “SENSING” does not describe its product because it does not have a sensor; instead, it detects disruptions in the flow of energy waves emitted by the preexisting IoT devices in the area.]
In re Superior Balance S.L., Application Serial No. 88632909 (January 13, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Marc A. Bergsman). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of Y-STRAP for “Physical exercise apparatus, for medical purposes; Posture correction device, namely, an adjustable harness to correct one’s posture for medical purposes; Stretching machines for therapeutic purposes; Traction apparatus for medical use.” Applicant maintained that it developed the phrase “Y-Axis Traction Strap” and that “certain informational articles on errant websites reference Applicant’s product in conjunction with Applicant’s phrase does not render the term Y-Axis Traction Strap inherently common and/or descriptive in this domain of inquiry.”]
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog comment: How did you do? See any WYHAs here?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2021.