[E-trademarks] descriptiveness objection based on packaging?

[Scott Landsbaum]

Have you googled the examiner to see how in/experienced s/he may be?

Regards,
Scott

Scott Landsbaum, Inc.
323-314-7881 / f 323-714-2454
8306 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 420, Beverly Hills, CA  90211
www.scottlandsbaum.com / www.linkedin.com/in/scottlandsbaum/

NOTICE: This e-mail is intended solely for the individual or individuals to
whom it is addressed and may contain confidential attorney-client
privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the
intended recipient, please do not read, forward, print, copy or distribute
it or any of the information it contains.  Please delete it immediately and
notify us by return email or by telephone at (323) 314-7881.

IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Any discussion of tax matters contained in
this or any email (including any attachments) or in any oral or other written
communication is not intended to be used and cannot be used for the purpose
of avoiding U.S. tax related penalties or in connection with the promotion,
marketing or recommendation of any of the matters addressed in the
communication.


On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 3:34 PM Jessica R. Friedman via E-trademarks <
e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:

> Client sells lingerie, each item of which is cleverly packaged to resemble
> a rose on a stem, under the mark PANTYROSE BOUQUET. There is no such thing
> as a PANTYROSE and the word BOUQUET does not describe lingerie. But the
> examiner has rejected the application, saying, “These words merely
> describe applicant’s lingerie in that they are underpants for women
> packaged decoratively to resemble a medley of roses, but is [sic] instead a
> medley of lingerie.[?] Moreover, applicant’s specimen clearly shows that
> its  lingerie is packaged to resemble a bouquet of roses.”
>
>
>
> A mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality,
> characteristic, function, feature, purpose or use of an applicant’s *goods
> or services *(and the examiner actually cites this rule). Is there some
> rule that I have just never heard of that says that a mark is descriptive
> if it describes a product’s creative *packaging*?
>
>
>
> 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/20250617/e083ad35/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 8892 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250617/e083ad35/attachment.png>