Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 11 FEBRUARY 2022

TTAB Affirms Section 2(e)(5) Functionality Refusal Of Serrated Knife Blade

Relying on Applicant's own advertising touting the design of its knife blade and its ease of manufacture (yielding lower cost), the Board affirmed Examining Attorney Caroline L. Moran's Section 2(e)(5) functionality...

United StatesIntellectual Property

Relying on Applicant's own advertising touting the design of its knife blade and its ease of manufacture (yielding lower cost), the Board affirmed Examining Attorney Caroline L. Moran's Section 2(e)(5) functionality refusal of the design of a "serration pattern" on the blade of a knife (shown below). Applicant GB's design patent served as some evidence of non-functionality, but was outweighed by GB's own advertising touting the design's utilitarian benefits. [I suppose one could say that GB stabbed itself in the foot - ed.]. For the purpose of completeness, the Board also considered Applicant GB's claim of acquired distinctiveness but found the evidence insufficient to support the Section 2(f) claim. In re GB II Corporation d/b/a Columbia River Knife & Tool Company, Serial No. 88730809 (February 8, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Jonathan Hudis).

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