[E-trademarks] Indisputably "merely descriptive" mark registered without disclaimer (and no 2(f) claim)

[Rachael Dickson]

Note: The lack of disclaimer in this mark is actually in accordance with
standard USPTO practices relating to unitary marks.

"If the matter that comprises the mark or relevant portion of the mark is
unitary, no disclaimer of an element, whether descriptive, generic, or
otherwise, is required." TMEP 1213.05 - Unitary Marks.

"Wording in a mark that comprises a prepositional phrase is generally
connected or unified by the preposition(s) in such a way that the elements
would not be regarded as separable." TMEP 1213.05(b)(ii)(B) - Prepositional
Phrases.

[image: logo] <https://www.catalyticlaw.com/>

Rachael Dickson (she/her)

Trademark Attorney | *Catalytic Law*

[image: cell]  (703) 831-7340 <7038317340>

[image: email]  Rachael at CatalyticLaw.com

[image: website]  www.catalyticlaw.com
[image: twitter] <https://twitter.com/TudorsAndTMs>  [image: linkedin]
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/rachaeldickson/>  [image: instagram]
<https://www.instagram.com/tudorsandtms/>

*Set up a Meeting with me via Calendly <https://calendly.com/catalyticlaw>!*
*How am I doing? Please consider posting a review on **Google
<https://streaklinks.com/BW9_T4EGxhNP61m9fQaHIV2i/https%3A%2F%2Fg.page%2Fr%2FCa_3S0RXD_6QEBM%2Freview>!*


On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 11:54 AM Kevin Grierson via E-trademarks <
e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:

> I don’t think the error affects the statutory advantages that affect
> enforceability—they would still have the presumption of ownership,
> validity, etc. that you get with a registration on the Principal
> Register—but having a registration on the Principal Register wouldn’t
> change the fact that the mark is inherently weak.  The fact that you don’t
> have an admission of descriptiveness doesn’t mean that a court wouldn’t
> note the obvious, error or no.
>
>
>
> Put differently, I don’t think you could defend an infringement claim on
> the ground that the PTO shouldn’t have granted the registration, but the
> facts that should have led to the refusal are still there to use as a
> defense.
>
>
>
> *Kevin Grierson**​**​**​**​*
>
> |
>
> Partner
>
> <https://www.cm.law/>
>
> [image: Mobile:]
>
>   757-726-7799
>
> [image: Fax:]
>
>   866-521-5663
>
> [image: Email:]
>
>   kgrierson at cm.law
>
> *Please note: Culhane Meadows is now CM Law
> <https://www.cm.law/cm-law-formerly-culhane-meadows-launches-second-decade-with-fresh-name-and-modern-brand/>*
>
>
>
> *From:* E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On Behalf
> Of *Jessica R. Friedman via E-trademarks
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 16, 2025 11:46 AM
> *To:* For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
> legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Jessica R. Friedman <jrfriedman at litproplaw.com>
> *Subject:* [E-trademarks] Indisputably "merely descriptive" mark
> registered without disclaimer (and no 2(f) claim)
>
>
>
> EXTERNAL EMAIL
>
> The mark COMPUTER SCIENCE FOR THE REAL WORLD is registered for books about
> computer science in various media without a disclaimer of COMPUTER SCIENCE,
> despite the fact that COMPUTER SCIENCE clearly is “merely descriptive” for
> books about computer science, and, the applicant did not claim secondary
> meaning.
>
>
>
> There’s no point asking how the PTO let that application proceed without
> the disclaimer in the first place. But would this registration actually be
> enforceable without proof of secondary meaning?  I guess I’m asking whether
> the clear error in the registration would be a defense to an infringement
> claim, or even a refusal to register a similar mark, even if I’m not asking
> the question in quite the right way.
>
>
>
>
>
> Jessica R. Friedman
>
> Attorney at Law
>
> 300 East 59 Street, Ste. 2406
>
> New York, NY 10022
>
> Phone: 212-220-0900
>
> Cell: 917-647-1884
>
> E-mail: *jrfriedman at litproplaw.com <jrfriedman at litproplaw.com>*
>
> URL: *www.literarypropertylaw.com <http://www.literarypropertylaw.com/>*
>
>
>
> [image: 1479430908386_PastedImage]
>
>
> --
> E-trademarks mailing list
> E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250416/03fc5461/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5049 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250416/03fc5461/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 285 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250416/03fc5461/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 452 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250416/03fc5461/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 394 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250416/03fc5461/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.png
Type: image/png
Size: 8893 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250416/03fc5461/attachment-0004.png>