Applicant applied for the mark BLAZING SILKS for a variety of
clothing products. Applicant also made clear that its products were
not made from silk.
FIRST STRIKE: Had Applicant's products been made from silk,
the USPTO would have deemed the word "silk" to be merely
descriptive and would have required Applicant disclaim
"silk" apart from the mark as shown. Note that Applicant
could have secured a registration for BLAZING SILKS, but with
"silks" disclaimed.
SECOND STRIKE: Because Applicant's clothing products are not
made of silk, the Trademark Examiner alleged the mark was
unregistrable because it was deceptive...deceptive because the
clothes were not made of silk...and because inclusion of the word
"silk" would deceptively cause consumers to conclude the
products were indeed made from silk. Note that the non-deceptive
"blazing" portion of the BLAZING SILKS does not save the
registration...., a significant difference between a
descriptiveness and deceptiveness
