Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 09 FEBRUARY 2021

TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Section 2(e)(1) Mere Descriptiveness Appeals Turn Out?

Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
Contributor
Wolf Greenfield & Sacks

Wolf Greenfield & Sacks

Wolf, Greenfield is one of the 10 largest law firms in the United States devoted exclusively to...

View firm profile
Explore more from Wolf Greenfield & Sacks

The TTAB recently decided the appeals from the three Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusals summarized below.

United StatesIntellectual Property

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 in the past several years the Board affirmed, by my calculation, just about 9 out of 10 of these refusals. Answer(s) will be found in the first comment.

1034628a.jpg

In re Douglas Wood, Application Serial Nos. 88388867 and 88388875 (January 28, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Michael B. Adlin). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of MISSIONAL MILLIONAIRE for publications and services in the field of faith-based life coaching. Applicant argued that the proposed mark is incongruous because the term "combines religious or spiritual services with great wealth, in a way that is contrary to the commonly understood notions of both of those terms. Missions are associated with religious based services for the poor, while millionaires are traditionally seeking to make money for themselves."]

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from