Here is an updated collection of Section 2(a) deceptiveness
cases from the TTABlog. Of course, most of these
decisions are not precedential, but even non-precedential decisions
may be helpful in framing effective arguments and locating
precedential support for them.
The Board applies a three-part test for determining whether a
mark is deceptive under Section 2(a): (1) is the term
misdescriptive of the character, quality, function, composition or
use of the goods? (2) If so, are prospective purchasers likely to
believe that the misdescription actually describes the goods? (3)
If so, is the misdescription likely to affect a significant portion
of the relevant consumers' decision to purchase? In re White Jasmine LLC, 106 USPQ2d 1385
(TTAB 2013) [precedential], citing In re Budge Mfg. Co.,
857 F.2d 773, 8 USPQ2d 1259, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
