Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Appeals by the Numbers
Two of the main substantive causes for refusals of U.S. federal trademark applications are descriptiveness refusals (under Section 2(e) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. '1052(e)(1)) and likelihood of confusion refusals (under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. '1052(d)). The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office's examiners and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's judges, who review ex parte appeals from examiners' final refusals to register pending applications, apply very different standards as 'tiebreakers' when the evidence and arguments submitted by the applicant against the two types of refusals create doubt about the appropriate outcome.
Any reasonable doubt as to whether a mark is merely descriptive or contains any suggestive element must be resolved in favor of the applicant. The rule grew out of Section 2(e)(1) refusals of merely descriptive marks, see, e.g., In re Aid Laboratories, Inc., 221 USPQ 1215 (TTAB 1983), In re MVP Group Int'l, Ser. No. 85074276 (TTAB May 16, 2012), and also applies to applies to 2(e)(2) refusals that the mark is primarily merely geographically descriptive,'see, e.g., In re International Taste Inc., 53 USPQ2d 1604, 1605-06 (TTAB 2000), and to 2(e)(4) that the mark is primarily merely a surname, see, e.g., In re Yeley, 85 USPQ2d 1150, 1151 (TTAB 2007); In re Benthin Mgmt. GmbH, 37 USPQ2d 1332, 1333-1334 (TTAB 1995). The standard of proof does not apply to Section 2(e)(3) refusals that a mark is primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive or to 2(e)(5) refusals that the matter applied for is functional.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
A Lawyer's System for Active Reading
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.