TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Appeals From 2(e)(1) Mere Descriptiveness Refusals Turn Out? - May 26, 2021

The TTAB recently decided the appeals from three Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusals summarized below. Let's see how you do with them, keeping in mind that last year the Board affirmed, by my calculation, about 88% of these refusals. Answer(s) will be found in the first comment.

In re L-Nutra, Inc., Application Serial No. 88171365 (May 12, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christpher Larkin). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of FASTING BAR for "Nutritionally balanced prepared meals for medical use consisting primarily of grains, nuts and vegetables; nutritional meal replacement snacks adapted for medical use." Applicant argued that, in view of the dictionary definition of "fast," the proposed mark is an oxymoron because "an individual cannot simultaneously fast and eat - it is one or the other,"]