The USPTO refused to register the mark
MOBILIZER for "massage apparatus and
instruments," deeming the mark merely descriptive under
Section 2(e)(1). The PTO's evidence consisted a dictionary
definition and examples of use of the term "mobilizer" in
various contexts. Applicant, of course, argued that the mark is
merely suggestive of a function, feature or characteristic of its
goods. How do you think this came out?
In re Simple Mobility Tools LLC, Serial No. 87717065 [not
precedential] (Opinion by Judge Peter W. Cataldo).
The Examining Attorney maintained that MOBILIZER "describes
a feature, characteristic, purpose and use of applicant's
massage apparatus and instruments in that it describes their
capacity to therapeutically mobilize joints." Pointing to a
dictionary definition of the word, he asserted that "by its
plain meaning the word MOBILIZER is descriptive of applicant's
massage apparatus and instruments in that they are used to make
mobile and/or restore
