The TTAB recently ruled on the appeals from three Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusals summarized below. Let's see how you do with them, keeping in mind that the Board affirms, by my calculation, some 90% of these refusals. Answer(s) will be found in the first comment.
In re Ossur hf, Application Serial No. 87876605 (March 6, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Marc A. Bergsman). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of CONNECT for "prosthetic and orthotic devices, namely, prosthetic sockets used to fasten prosthetic limbs to the body"].
In re David Lloyd Kremer, Application Serial No. 87805208 (March 5, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Marc A. Bergsman). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of CAMO CORN for "foodstuffs for animals, namely, corn feed for consumption by animals"].
In re Michele DeSimone, Serial No. 87808309 (February 27, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christopher Larkin). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of THE SENSORY STUDIO for "Occupational therapy services; Speech therapy services; Behavioral health services; Listening therapy services; Play therapy services; Psychological services, namely, providing therapeutic services to children with special needs and their families; Psychological testing; Speech and language therapy services; Speech pathology therapy services; Stress reduction therapy" [STUDIO disclaimed]].
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.