Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 23 APRIL 2021

TTAB Finds ARTESANO Generic For Bread, But If Not Generic, Registrable Under Section 2(f)

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

In a 49-page decision, the Board affirmed a genericness refusal of the proposed mark ARTESANO for "pre-packaged sliced bread," but it reversed the USPTO's alternative mere descriptiveness refusal,...

United StatesIntellectual Property

In a 49-page decision, the Board affirmed a genericness refusal of the proposed mark ARTESANO for "pre-packaged sliced bread," but it reversed the USPTO's alternative mere descriptiveness refusal, finding that, if ARTESANO is not generic, it has acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f). Applicant Bimbo argued that the doctrine of foreign equivalents does not apply because consumers will not stop and translate the foreign word "artisano." Bimbo also offered the results of a Teflon survey to show consumer perception. The Board disagreed as to the doctrine and pooh-poohed the survey results. In re Grupo Bimbo, S.A.B. de C.V., Serial No. 87408465 (April 14, 2021) (Opinion by Judge Marc A. Bergsman).

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