Search for: "Mark C. Good"
Results 2401 - 2420
of 5,964
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Apr 2017, 2:09 am
" The Hearing Officer upheld the opposition and refused to register the mark on the basis of the absolute grounds for refusal set out in section 3(1)(c) and (d) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 ("the TMA"). [read post]
28 Apr 2017, 3:06 am
Marine Corps, USMC or Marines).Nor did opposer meet the second or fourth prongs of the Section 2(a) test: there was no evidence that applicant's mark points "uniquely and unmistakably" to opposer, and there was no evidence that opposer's name or identity is of sufficient fame or reputation that applicant's goods would presumably evoke a connection with opposer.Section 2(a) Deceptiveness The Section 2(a) deceptiveness bar requires that a term misdescribe a… [read post]
26 Apr 2017, 11:10 am
Pursuant to section 19 of the Trademarks Act, registration grants the owner of a mark the exclusive right to use the mark in Canada in respect of the goods or services for which it has been registered. [read post]
26 Apr 2017, 11:10 am
Pursuant to section 19 of the Trademarks Act, registration grants the owner of a mark the exclusive right to use the mark in Canada in respect of the goods or services for which it has been registered. [read post]
20 Apr 2017, 9:13 am
Hon Dr Klaus Grabinski agreed with Margot Fröhlinger that since the UPC was an ex-EU system, there was a good chance to keep the UK in the system post-Brexit. [read post]
19 Apr 2017, 4:57 am
It was mentioned by the speaker primarily as an example of how trade marks can affect the free movement of goods/services within the Community. [read post]
18 Apr 2017, 6:15 pm
Baker, C. [read post]
17 Apr 2017, 6:56 am
” The allegedly infringing watches were marked with “NY & Co. [read post]
17 Apr 2017, 5:27 am
¿Cómo tú puedes hacer eso, chica? [read post]
14 Apr 2017, 12:21 pm
It will make you good company for others. [read post]
12 Apr 2017, 1:23 pm
Jane C. [read post]
8 Apr 2017, 4:50 am
More specifically, the Board of Appeal was unsure whether trade mark registration of public domain works might, under certain circumstances [notably when the artwork in question is well-known and has significant cultural value], be against “public policy or accepted principles of morality” and thus fall within the absolute ground for refusal within Article 3(1)(f) of the Trade Mark Directive.The Board of Appeal decided to seek guidance on this point (as well as… [read post]
6 Apr 2017, 2:59 am
The TTAB affirmed a Section 2(b) refusal of the mark shown below left, for various goods in classes 20, 21, and 24, including furniture, dinnerware, and fabrics, on the ground that the mark comprises a design that simulates a governmental insignia of the United Kingdom, namely, the Prince of Wales' emblem (shown below right)]. [read post]
5 Apr 2017, 7:35 am
It might have expected to succeed because in 2014, Motors successfully opposed an application by B62 for BENTLEY 1962 for the same goods, relying on (amongst other successful grounds) unfair advantage (decision). [read post]
3 Apr 2017, 1:49 pm
P. 26(c)(1)). [read post]
3 Apr 2017, 1:49 pm
P. 26(c)(1)). [read post]
31 Mar 2017, 9:08 am
So too for rights in limping marks in the first place: association with a particular producer is not enough, it must be association that consumers use to identify the goods and services they wish to buy or avoid.Sarah Burstein: Agree re: mutilation/phantom marks: separate commercial impression required for just a part. [read post]
31 Mar 2017, 7:49 am
That was chosen b/c Nike was a strong mark. [read post]
31 Mar 2017, 6:05 am
This marked a significant change from the 2012 copyright reform package, reflecting U.S. desire for increased criminalization of copyright law. [read post]
29 Mar 2017, 11:54 am
(internal quotation marks omitted). [read post]
