The TTAB recently decided the appeals from the three Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusals summarized below. Actually, two involved disclaimer requirements. One of the refusals was reversed. Which one? [Answer will be found in the first comment.]
In re Pan American Properties, Corp., Application Serial No. 88277015 (February 10, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Elizabeth A. Dunn). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of SANGRIIITA. (in standard characters) for "alcoholic beverages except beers; prepared alcoholic cocktail." Applicant argued that because it owns registrations for SANGRIIIA and GASOLINA SANGRIIIA, consumers will perceived SANGRIIITA as a member of that family of marks and not as descriptive term referring to a cocktail known as a sangrita].
In re Viromare Design LLC, Serial No. 87705193 (February 19, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Peter W. Cataldo). [Requirement for disclaimer of PASTA THE ORIGINAL PASTA DONUT in the mark POP PASTA THE ORIGINAL PASTA DONUT for "pasta, non-pastry, non-fried prepared pasta pressed in the shape of a donut and baked, hand-held non-pastry, non-fried prepared pasta product made by shaping and baking pasta." Applicant argued that it coined the term "pasta donut," and further that the mark as a whole is unitary.]
In re Walmart Apollo, LLC, Application Serial No. 88040421 (February 22, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Karen S. Kuhlke). [Requirement for disclaimer of TECH in the mark SUPER TECH for air filters for automobiles. Applicant maintained that "'tech' is primarily an abbreviation for 'technical' or 'technician'" and in the context of Applicant's goods "conveys that purchasers of the underlying goods are 'super technicians' or, more specifically, super automotive technicians."]
Read comments and post your comment here.
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.