Search for: "Matter of Mark S."
Results 21 - 40
of 26,726
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Jan 2007, 9:42 am
The second of today's ECJ trade mark judgments - this time the fate of Dyson's application to register the transparent bin of its vacuum cleaner for vacuum cleaners.The UK court made a reference based on acquired distinctiveness in relation to functional elements of goods, but the ECJ chose to base its decision on whether the mark was in fact a sign.The ECJ's decision has left the IPKat in a bit of a spin*The applied for mark was… [read post]
10 Jul 2015, 2:14 am
Both parties in the matter, per the decision of the TTAB earlier, agreed on two specific questions that needed to be answered in determining whether a mark contains matter that may disparage Native Americans:1. [read post]
21 Oct 2021, 1:59 pm
Photo: Shelly (Tian’s kitten) [read post]
5 Mar 2020, 11:02 am
The defendant's signs were visually and conceptually similar to the claimant's marks. [read post]
15 Sep 2014, 6:15 am
Attorney Mark Tarallo will present the basics of an M&A transaction from start to finish in tomorrow’s Mergers & Acquisitions 101 provided by MyLawCLE. [read post]
7 Oct 2016, 5:51 am
If a mark is generic, you can’t register it, no matter how much you use it. [read post]
25 Aug 2013, 2:12 am
’” The Lanham Act, which codifies US trade mark law, sets forth the various reasons why a mark will not be accepted for trade mark protection, including a mark which "consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter." [read post]
25 Apr 2011, 10:55 am
” Merely descriptive marks would be things like “Bob’s Computer’s. [read post]
14 Jan 2008, 12:34 pm
Back in November, we brought you a podcast of Clinical Professor of Law Mark Heyrman giving a Chicago's Best Ideas talk entitled "Why the Legal Standard for Involuntary Commitment to Mental Hospitals Doesn't Matter (Much). [read post]
18 Dec 2013, 5:01 am
We also find that the much greater number of words in applicant’s proposed mark, as compared to the list of ingredients in the McDonald’s case, presents an even higher hurdle for applicant to overcome when trying to establish that her proposed mark would be perceived as such. [read post]
31 Dec 2012, 7:34 am
Fortunately, it just so happened that, on the day the Interflora hearing took place, this Kat was in Florida for the International Trademark Association's annual meeting to discuss the Courts & Tribunals Subcommittee's report on the use of survey evidence in trade mark matters. [read post]
9 Dec 2013, 7:38 am
Kirby Morgan’s problem is that it doesn’t have a federally famous, household name mark. [read post]
17 May 2019, 10:34 am
The talk from Simon Malynicz QC, SkyKick's leading counsel, gave an insider's perspective in the trade mark dispute which could have an important impact on trade mark law for many years to come.For background on the Skykick dispute see here, the referred questions are here. [read post]
26 Jan 2012, 9:22 am
I don’t normally agree on detention policy matters with Seton Hall’s Mark Denbeaux–and there’s certainly some rhetoric in this piece in Jurist that I would never use and conclusiosn I do not reach. [read post]
3 Dec 2013, 2:13 am
He has been busily running INTA -- or at least part of it -- in recent times and this is what he has to say: "Astute (and sober) readers might still recall this ex-guest Kat’s New Year's Eve missive and final post of 2012 (here) which related to the formulation of best practices in conducting surveys in trade mark matters. [read post]
22 Jan 2013, 12:39 am
No matter how many times this Kat goes through the ritual, the mystery remains. [read post]
18 Apr 2013, 9:41 am
Colloseum, a retailer of outerwear, started to sell jeans under the trade marks COLLOSEUM, S. [read post]
14 Jan 2018, 11:32 pm
Now, UKIPO’s Trade Marks Manual does not rule out the registrability of olfactory marks. [read post]
15 Jul 2011, 4:22 am
MARK DAYTON’S SHUTDOWN BACKDOWN: Why Minnesota Matters. “This is Minnesota. [read post]
11 Dec 2022, 9:56 am
In essence, it considered that there was no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue and that the evidence submitted by the applicant in order to demonstrate the acquired distinctiveness of the earlier mark through use was not sufficient for that purpose.The General Court’s judgmentThe applicant relied on a single plea in law, namely infringement of Articles 60(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) EUTMR.The present analysis only concerns the applicant’s claim… [read post]
