The USPTO refused to register the mark KERRIDGE
COMMERCIAL SYSTEMS for various goods and services, all for
use in the distribution, wholesale, merchant and retail industries
[COMMERCIAL SYSTEMS disclaimed], finding the mark to be primarily
merely a surname under Section 2(e)(4). The evidence showed at
least 193 results for the surname "Kerridge" from 18
different U.S. states, but Applicant argued that this is an
insignificant portion of the U.S. population. How do you think this
came out? In re Kerridge Commercial Systems Limited,
Application Serial No. 87383302 (August 6, 2019) [not precedential]
(Opinion by Judge Elizabeth A. Dunn).
Kerridge, England
Evidentiary issues: The Examining Attorney
submitted a screenshot purporting to show that KERRIDGE is the name
of applicant's founder, but because the document lacked a date
and a URL, the Board refused to consider it. See In re I-Coat
Company, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1733 (TTAB 2018) and In re
Mueller Sports
