Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 15 MARCH 2018

Precedential No. 6: TTAB FInds MECHANICALLY FLOOR-MALTED Generic For ... Guess What?

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 Board affirmed the USPTO's refusal to register the term MECHANICALLY FLOOR-MALTED, in standard characters, finding it to be generic for "malt for brewing and distilling" in International Class 31 ...

United StatesIntellectual Property

The Board affirmed the USPTO's refusal to register the term MECHANICALLY FLOOR-MALTED, in standard characters, finding it to be generic for "malt for brewing and distilling" in International Class 31 and "processing of agricultural grain' in International Class 40. Applicant Mecca, relying primarily on the CAFC's Princeton Vanguard decision, contended that the Examining Attorney Dawn Feldman Lehker's evidence did not include use of the exact term "mechanically floor-malted" as a generic designation for the identified goods or services. The Board pointed out, however, that Mecca was misreading the precedent. In re Mecca Grade Growers, LLC, Serial No. 86358219 (March 12, 2018) [precedential] (Opinion by Judge Angela Lykos).

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