Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> The TTABlog

Intellectual Property Law

: The TTABlog

TTAB Pulls Plug on "ELECTRIC" for Watches, Affirms 2(e)(1) Mere Descriptiveness Refusal

Well, here we are again with a candidate for our WYHA file (Would You Have Appealed?). The Board affirmed a Section 2(e)(1) refusal of the mark ELECTRIC for watches and watch bands, finding it merely descriptive of watches. Applicant Electric Visual Evolution argued that "the term 'electric' is not commonly used by the general public to describe a source of power for watches," but the PTO's evidence demonstrated otherwise. In re Electric Visual Evolution, LLC, Serial No. 78868409 (September 19, 2008) [not precedential].Examining Attorney Simon Teng maintained that ?[t]he word ?electric? immediately conveys to consumers that Applicant?s watches run on electricity.? Applicant argued that ELECTRIC is not merely descriptive because (1) consumers are unlikely to associate the term ?electric? with watches and watchbands and (2) the word ?electric? has multiple meanings, including ?emotionally charged? or ?exciting...continue to full post

Full post as published by The TTABlog on October 07, 2008 (boomark / email).