Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 11 AUGUST 2022

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

Last week, the TTAB ruled on the appeals from the three Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusals summarized below. Let's see how you do with them. Results will be found in the first comment.

United StatesIntellectual Property

Last week, the TTAB ruled on the appeals from the three Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusals summarized below. Let's see how you do with them. Results will be found in the first comment.

1220836a.jpg

In re Eric Fessell, Serial No. 90263552 (August 4, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Elizabeth A. Dunn). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of MOTHER NATURE for books featuring a fictional hero, namely, Mother Nature (class 16); clothing (Class 25); and videos and animations of the fictional character, Mother Nature (Class 41).]

1220836b.jpg

In re MVN Entertainment L.P., Serial No. 90047473 (August 4, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Frances S. Wolfson). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of POWER PONY for "Ride on toys and accessories therefor; Rideable toy vehicles; Ride on toys having a seating portion removably attached to an electrically powered wheeled device."]

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.

See more popular content from