<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">I tend to think of a mere descriptiveness refusal as an assessment that the mark-goods combination is (based on all of the facts) perhaps redeemably merely descriptive (in that there could be reasons the mark-goods combination is descriptive but is not merely descriptive).</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">I tend to think of a mere descriptiveness refusal with a generic advisory as an assessment that the mark-goods combination is (based on all of the facts) perhaps irredeemably merely descriptive, to the point of being generic (in that there very likely aren't any reasons the marks-goods combination could be anything other than the most extreme form of mere descriptiveness known as generic).</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div></div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-family:georgia,serif"><br></span></div><div><font face="georgia, serif" size="2">Sincerely,</font></div><div><font face="georgia, serif" size="2"><br></font></div><div><div style="font-size:small"><font face="georgia, serif" size="2">Ed Timberlake </font></div><div style="font-size:small"><font face="georgia, serif" size="2"><i><a href="https://www.nclawspecialists.gov/for-the-public/find-a-board-certified-specialist/results/detail/?id=29473" target="_blank">Board Certified Specialist in Trademark Law</a></i></font></div><div style="font-size:small"><font face="georgia, serif" size="2"><br></font></div><div style="font-size:small"><div style="font-family:georgia,serif"><a href="http://timberlakelaw.com/" target="_blank"><b>Timberlake Law</b></a></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif">Chapel Hill, NC<br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif"><a href="https://clarity.fm/edtimberlake" target="_blank">Schedule a call on Clarity</a><br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif"><a href="mailto:ed@timberlakelaw.com" target="_blank">ed@timberlakelaw.com</a><br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif">919.960.1950<br></div></div></div><div><br></div><div><img width="96" height="96" src="https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4zUm0zjuSoSf91b85RXakFjrbAqMcNkJek2_S8VO9eHNz9mDAX5u3RBN0aEhVODltVLqRN-NYsDzt7A"><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 12:35\u202fPM Laura Geyer via E-trademarks <<a href="mailto:e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com">e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class="msg1481424105168940739">
<div lang="EN-US" style="overflow-wrap: break-word;">
<div class="m_1481424105168940739WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Honored colleagues:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So, let\u2019s say hypothetically one had a final refusal to register based on mere descriptiveness. However, that refusal also added a genericy* \u201cadvisory\u201d concluding that \u201c\u2026 the trademark examining attorney
<b>cannot recommend that applicant amend the application to proceed \u2026 on the Supplemental Register as possible response options to this refusal</b>.\u201d<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Setting aside the mere decriptiveness issue, it appears (based on the hypothetical clarification that one might have requested prior to throwing away client $$ on a response, an AAU, and lawyer time for that stuff) that although refusal
based on genericy is one based on overlapping but ultimately different grounds, there is no need to make that determination final. That builds a grenade into an OA -- the only way to find out whether the mark will be ultimately refused as generic is to pull
the pin and file the AAU (blowing the filing fee and lawyer time to do that) and only at that point will the mystery be revealed either in an approval or the kablooey of a new final refusal. This seems absurd. Why is a genericy refusal not (like any ground
for refusal) one that must be made final with other grounds for refusal in such an OA, since there is no need for the evidence of use to be examined in order to make that ruling?<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And if the grenade is indeed correctly included, what\u2019s the betting on ultimate chances of refusal? 95%? 85% 75%?
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">*[I will persist in using this term \u2013 with apologies to Gilbert and Sullivan]
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>\u201cGenericy, genericy\u201d<u></u><u></u></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>The OED cries \u201cheresy\u201d<u></u><u></u></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>But other terms are awkward, see<u></u><u></u></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>So let\u2019s all use \u201cgenericy\u201d<u></u><u></u></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:rgb(23,78,134)">Laura Talley Geyer</span></b><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51)"> |
</span><b><span style="color:rgb(102,102,102)">Of Counsel</span></b><span style="color:black">
</span><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:rgb(23,78,134)"><u></u> <u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:rgb(23,78,134)">ND Galli Law LLC</span></b><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>1200 G Street, N.W., Ste 800<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Washington, DC 20005<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Tel: (202) 599-9019 (direct)<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><a href="https://ndgallilaw.com/laura-geyer/" target="_blank">https://ndgallilaw.com/laura-geyer/</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><a href="https://ndgallilaw.com/" target="_blank">https://ndgallilaw.com/</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
-- <br>
E-trademarks mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:E-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">E-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
</div></blockquote></div>