Search for: "Mark Connot"
Results 401 - 420
of 1,144
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Apr 2011, 3:08 am
"As regards connotation, since both parties’ goods include edible pet treats, the term “strips” would mean the same thing in relation to both marks. [read post]
15 Jun 2018, 3:22 am
The word marks at issue both connote a "dead bird," and the term has no significance in connection with beer or wine. [read post]
2 Aug 2013, 3:52 am
The Board concluded that the the marks "have a similar appearance, similar elements of sound, and similar connotation and commercial impression," and so this duPont factor favored Petitioner.Respondent submitted 12 third-party registrations for marks containing “NUT” and/or “PEANUT,” claiming that these terms are “widespread in both the candy and snack industry to suggest an ingredient of the product. [read post]
25 Apr 2014, 7:38 pm
To the contrary, the Board found that the design strengthened the impact of the word element of the mark and did not create a different connotation or impression. [read post]
15 Oct 2013, 3:40 am
The Board was unimpressed:While ME SO may be phonetically similar to MISO, the appearance and, more importantly, the connotation is completely different, in that MISO is "a fermented seasoning paste of soybeans, often with rice or barley added, used to flavor soups and sauces," and ME SO in the phrase ME SO HUNGRY simply refers to an individual who is hungry. [read post]
14 Jun 2019, 3:46 am
[and] the marks share not only a royal connotation but a direct familial relationship. [read post]
1 Feb 2021, 4:02 am
" Since there was no evidence regarding the commercial strength of the cited mark, the Board considered this DuPont factor to be neutral.The Board found the involved marks to be similar in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impressions. [read post]
26 Sep 2014, 3:02 am
The Board deemed the marks to be similar in sound, appearance, meaning, and connotation, and third-party registration and Internet evidence convinced the Board that the goods are "closely related. [read post]
19 Jul 2023, 4:15 am
The involved services overlap, but what about the marks? [read post]
14 May 2024, 3:25 am
It observed that "many consumers are likely to perceive both marks to be variations on, or misspellings of, and the phonetic equivalent of 'elementary.'" "In view of the similarities in appearance, sound, and likely similar connotation for many consumers as a misspelling or phonetic equivalent of “elementary,” with the same meaning, we find the overall commercial impressions of the marks to be very similar. [read post]
8 Jul 2013, 3:04 am
The inclusion of the first name JOEL in opposer's mark merely underscores the fact that GOTT connotes a person's name. [read post]
19 Jan 2011, 2:55 am
" And even if consumers recognize the double-t design as a macaron [highly unlikely, I think - ed.], that stylization "merely adds a highly descriptive connotation to applicant's mark that is subordinate to that created by" the mark as a whole.Finally as to the second design mark, the circular design is insufficient to distinguish it from Opposer's mark.Applicant pointed to four years of use without any actual confusion, despite… [read post]
3 Sep 2008, 11:00 am
Further, the inclusion of 'at' in applicant's drawing results in a mark, 'AT C-LEVEL,' which is different in connotation from either 'C-LEVEL' or 'San Diego at C-LEVEL.'"Therefore, the Board affirmed the refusal.Text Copyright John L. [read post]
21 Apr 2011, 2:21 am
Therefore, the Board concluded that ROOTER is "an arbitrary and strong term" in connection with the involved services.And so, despite the differences in the marks, the Board found them to be "similar in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression," and it sustained the opposition.TTABlog comment: I think MAN is the dominant word in Opposer's mark. [read post]
23 Dec 2008, 12:00 pm
" Accordingly, when we consider the marks in their entireties, we are of the opinion that they differ substantially in appearance, sound, meaning and commercial impression.Opposer contended that the marks are similar because they "share the prominent use of the suffix 'MAX.' However, the Board observed, "While both parties adopted their marks to connote a 'maximum' quality, their marks emphasize different qualities… [read post]
25 Nov 2013, 10:25 am
First, the Board reviewed the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties with respect to sound, appearance, connotation, and commercial impression. [read post]
13 Oct 2010, 2:22 am
The Board, however, found that "Wildman" and "William" have very different sounds, connotations, and commercial impressions. [read post]
Precedential No. 27: TTAB Affirms 2(d) Refusal of #WILLPOWER - Hashtag Has No Trademark Significance
22 Aug 2018, 3:36 am
"Applicant further contended that #WILLPOWER has a different connotation that the word "WILLPOWER" in the cited registration because in the applied-for mark the word "WILL" is "meant to play on" the first portion of will.i.am's stage name. [read post]
29 Jul 2019, 3:04 am
Likewise, the same term dominates opposer's marks. [read post]
Precedential No. 31: TTAB Dismisses U. Alabama Opposition to HOUNDSTOOTH MAFIA & Design for Clothing
29 Jul 2013, 2:51 am
The use of a common houndstooth pattern imparts a light-hearted connotation to the mark that is inconsistent with any sinister meaning. [read post]
