The TTAB recently decided the appeals from 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 93% of these refusals. Answer(s) will be found in the first comment.


In re Larsen Medical, LLC, Application Serial No. 87892535 (December 28, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Linda A. Kuczma). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of THE CARDIO GROUP (standard characters) for “Retail store services featuring medical devices” and “Medical training and teaching; Providing a web site featuring non-downloadable instructional videos in the field of plethysmography.” Applicant argued that the proposed mark does not retain the meaning of each of the words that comprise the mark, and further that, there is no definition of “the cardio group” on, “consumers could have latitude to interpret its meaning.”]

In re Srastr Inc., Application Serial No. 88185284 (December 29, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cindy B. Greenbaum). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of TECHGEAR for downloadable mobile application software for use to connect and control IoT (Internet of Things) electronic devices in Class 9; retail services featuring technology products, namely, IoT-enabled devices and accessories in Class 35; education, entertainment and training services, namely, organizing and conducting computer game competitions and classes, seminars and workshops in the fields of teaching people how to use IoT enabled devices in Class 41; and software as a service (SAAS) services featuring computer software to connect and control IoT electronic devices in Class 42. Applicant maintained that the proposed mark is merely suggestive because there are multiple definitions of the word “gear” and the word TECHGEAR could refer to other types of products, and it also claimed to be the first user of the designation TECHGEAR specifically to refer to the identified IoT goods and services.]


In re Todd Reed Arbutina, Serial No. 88219477 (December 29, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Melanye K. Johnson). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of DIGITAL ASSET COOPERATIVE (CO-OP) for “cooperative advertising and marketing services for advertising members’ shared digital assets in virtual e-commerce marketplaces in exchange for subscriber revenues and any other direct or in-direct forms of payment.” Applicant contended that the examining attorney failed to supply any evidence that proposed mark is used in connection with “a platform in which a client’s digital assets can be collectively maintained and managed by owner of said mark.”]

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog comment: How did you do? See any WYHAs here?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2020.