Search for: "Mark C. Good"
Results 361 - 380
of 5,936
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Apr 2019, 12:32 pm
Last Thursday Advocate General (AG) Kokott handed down her Opinion in case C-104/18 P Koton Mağazacilik Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ v Euipo (C-104/18 P). [read post]
3 Apr 2014, 6:29 am
§ 1125(c)), Disney would likely be able to convincingly satisfy these requirements. [read post]
11 Jun 2015, 10:46 am
In order to establish that a trade mark has acquired distinctive character following the use that had been made of it within the meaning of Article 3(3) of [the Trade Marks Directive, 2008/95, here], is it sufficient for the applicant for registration to prove that at the relevant date a significant proportion of the relevant class of persons recognise the mark and associate it with the applicant’s goods in the sense that, if they were to consider who… [read post]
1 Sep 2021, 4:24 am
In re The Yokohama Rubber Co., Ltd., Serial No. 79271385 (October 30, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge George C. [read post]
9 Dec 2013, 12:27 am
This opposition was based on two grounds, first that on account of the similarity of the respective marks and the identical nature of their respective goods, there was a likelihood of confusion of the relevant consumers under Article 8(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation and secondly that, on account of the reputation of the earlier mark, the use of a similar mark by Elena, without due cause, would take unfair advantage of the reputation of that… [read post]
16 Dec 2022, 4:00 am
In re Smith & Vandiver, Corp., Serial No. 88477572 (December 13, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cynthia C. [read post]
19 May 2024, 10:27 pm
Castelbajac is still the designer of the goods cannot affect the trade mark itself, even if it were held to be deceptive. [read post]
31 Dec 2013, 1:59 pm
Some countries recognize excusable circumstances deemed to be outside the trade mark owner’s control such as (1) legal restrictions on the continued sale of goods or services or (2) the bankruptcy or insolvency of the mark owner.Searching for the legal downloading platformIn the Napster case Ryan Lester, the owner of an open-source sharing website, received a C&D letter requesting him to stop using the URL Napster.fm. [read post]
28 Jun 2023, 3:01 am
Background Hummel Holding A/S (‘Hummel’) owns International Registration no. 915962 designating the EU for the following figurative mark: It was registered for the EU in 2006 for various goods and services in classes 3, 18, 25, 28, and 35. [read post]
27 Nov 2022, 11:03 am
§ 1125(c)(3)(A)(ii). [read post]
7 Mar 2014, 10:33 am
The author is our beloved Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which yesterday provided guidelines as to which elements can be considered in assessing the very essential nature of a trade mark and its compliance with absolute grounds (Yoshida Metal Industry Co. v Pi-Design AG and others, Joined Cases C‑337/12 P to C‑340/12 P).In 1999, the Japanese company Yoshida Metal Industry Co. [read post]
1 Nov 2022, 3:56 am
" In any event, "Opposer’s evidence bearing on the fame of its SONY mark . . . checks all of the boxes for fame under Section 43(c)(2)(A) of the Trademark Act. [read post]
24 Oct 2012, 11:37 am
Similarly, Section 2(c) bars a mark identifying a living person, unless that person has consented in writing to the mark, as Tim Tebow apparently has done here. [read post]
28 Aug 2018, 12:16 am
Julius Stobbs and Yana ZhouIn the EU, any third party in possession of genuine goods put on the market in the European Economic Area (EEA) by the trade mark owner or with the trade mark owner’s consent is free to resell those goods within the EEA. [read post]
9 Oct 2019, 2:39 am
[C]onsumers are used to seeing the term RAINFOREST in connection with dietary and nutritional supplements, whether it is used as a trademark or descriptively/suggestively, and Applicant’s mark will thus be perceived as just one more of the many uses of RAINFOREST/RAIN FOREST for dietary or nutritional supplements or related goods. [read post]
14 Dec 2016, 5:22 am
Specifically, it relied on sections 34(1)(a) or 34(1)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, which provides for the infringement of a mark where there has been use of a same or similar mark, in respect of identical goods or services in the first instance or similar goods or services in the latter instance, provided there is likely to be deception or confusion in the marketplace.The SCA went into what the purpose of a trade mark is and how… [read post]
11 Jul 2016, 5:56 am
” Lanham Act §43(c)(2)(B). [read post]
27 Dec 2023, 1:02 pm
This is in line with the French case law and the CJEU ruling in Zino Davidoff, C-414/99 at 54. [read post]
7 Jun 2023, 3:06 am
The Board granted a petition to cancel a registration for the mark ARTNCRAFT for, inter alia, ceramic knobs and pulls, finding confusion likely with petitioner's identical, prior-used common law mark for overlapping goods. [read post]
15 Apr 2019, 11:44 pm
It fell to McDonald’s to prove it had put the mark to genuine use in the EU for a variety of goods in Classes 29, 30 and 42 – including for “meat sandwiches” (ie, burger in a bun). [read post]
