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 last year the Board affirmed, by my calculation, about 93% these refusals. Answer(s) will be found in the first comment.
In re Shimano North America Holding, Inc., Application Serial No. 88185338 (June 24, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge George C. Pologeorgis). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of FLAT-FALL for "Fishing lures; Lures for fishing" in International Class 28.
In re Fusion 360, Inc., Application Serial No. 88131491 (June 24, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cristopher Larkin). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of BUD SET for "Fertilizers; plant foods; chemicals for use in agricultural and industry, namely, microbial nutrient compositions, microbial compositions, bioremediation compositions, mineral fertilizing preparations, and plant nutrient compositions," in International Class 1. Applicant argued, inter alia, that the proposed mark is not merely descriptive because it does not describe a "significant function, attribute, or property" of the claimed goods.]
In re Daktronics, Inc., Serial No. 87101453 (June 22, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cheryl S. Goodman). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of LIVETICKER (in standard characters) for "Computer graphics software" in International Class 9. Applicant argued, inter alia, that the Examining Attorney was attempting to "guess or infer" how Applicant will use its mark, and that "at this stage the Examining Attorney is in no position to determine" how Applicant will use its mark.].
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.