2 ms·
This is ridiculous! The provisional trademark "Candy" should be refused under Section 2(e)(1) Refusal – Merely Descriptive. Simple as that! "...A mark is merel
by chenster 13y ago
This is ridiculous! The provisional trademark "Candy" should be refused under Section 2(e)(1) Refusal – Merely Descriptive. Simple as that!
"...A mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of an applicant’s goods and/or services. TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., ___ F.3d ___, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Comm’r of Patents, 252 U.S. 538, 543 (1920))."
King.com must've bribed the trademark officials. Disgusting!