Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 05 OCTOBER 2020

TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Section 2(e)(1) Mere Descriptiveness Appeals Come Out? - October 02, 2020

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 TTAB recently ruled on the appeals from the three Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusals summarized below.

United StatesIntellectual Property

The TTAB recently ruled on the appeals from the 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 93% of these refusals. Answer(s) will be found in the first comment.

In re Surfline/Wavetrak, Inc., Application Serial No. 88416048 (September 30, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Albert Zervas). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of FISHTRACK  for "online informational services, namely, providing a website featuring non-downloadable fishing charts, fishing reports, and fishing cams in the nature of videos featuring recreational fishing spots non-downloadable informational articles related to fishing, and non-downloadable photos and videos of fish over the Internet." Applicant argued that its website "provides fishing charts and fishing reports of past fishing activity, but there is no information provided that would allow someone to

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