In Re Stereotaxis, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• affirming TTAB’s finding that STER-EOTAXIS was descriptive of certain magnetic medical devices and services because it described their functions and purposes— performing the “stereotaxis” brain surgery technique
• affirming refusal to register for failure to comply with a disclaimer requirement
• “[Registration should be refused if the mark is descriptive of any of the goods for which registration is sought.”
• “A descriptiveness refusal is proper “if the mark is descriptive of any of the [goods or services in the class] for which registration is sought.”
• “A descriptiveness refusal is proper “if the mark is descriptive of any of the [goods or services in the class] for which registration is sought.”
• “A descriptiveness refusal is proper “if the mark is descriptive of any of the [goods or services in the class] for which registration is sought.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).