The TTAB recently ruled on the appeals from the three Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusals summarized below. No hints this time. Let's see how you do with them. Answer will be found in the first comment.
In re Esther Yang, Serial Nos. 88708065 and 88708080 (November 1, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Jyll Taylor). [Mere descriptiveness refusals of HOT KARATE and HOT SELF DEFENSE for physical fitness instruction and training services. Applicant maintained that the marks are registrable because they create "double meanings," since "hot" can mean high in temperature or "hot" as in "currently popular or in demand."]
In re Oral Arts Laboratory, Inc., Serial No. 88092627 (November 3, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cynthia C. Lynch). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of BIOLOGIC HYBRID (Stylized) for "dental implants; dental crowns; dental fixtures, namely, prefabricated parts for crowns, bridges and pontics." Applicant argued the mark is merely suggestive because "biologic" suggests something that is biological in nature, thus making the goods more appealing to consumers by implying that they are natural and thus compatible with the human body.]
In re Foil Boarding Company, Inc., Serial Nos. Serial No. 88622718 and 88622731 (November 4, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christopher Larkin). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of FOIL, in standard character and stylized form, for "electric hydrofoil surfboards." Applicant asserted that "foil" is not "unconditionally defined as a hydrofoil," since there are more than 30 other definitions of the word "foil" and in any case, the term does not describe a significant characteristic of the goods.]
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog comment: How did you do? See any WYHAs here?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2021.
Labels:
0 comments:
Post a Comment