Search for: "Mark May"
Results 4401 - 4420
of 64,950
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Jun 2013, 10:41 pm
Adam Swan, Opposition No. 91202493 (May 24, 2013) [not precedential].The Board first considered the issue of standing, noting that Opposer had failed to properly make its registrations of record. [read post]
15 Jan 2014, 3:54 am
Advertising and promotion may prove analogous use, provided that it is sufficiently widespread. [read post]
3 Jul 2014, 2:00 pm
This is surely trade mark infringement, shouted DMS andWD, who promptly commenced proceedings.Yes, said the two defendants, it does rather look like trade mark infringement -- but surely the mark wasn't validly registered. [read post]
20 Feb 2020, 3:01 am
Applicant maintained that its mark is “suggestive, arbitrary, or fanciful, such as when a geographic mark may indicate that a product is stylish or of a high quality, i.e. [read post]
5 Dec 2006, 7:11 pm
" As to Applicant's fair use claim, the Board pointed out that, although a fair use defense may be available in a civil action, "it has no applicability in inter partes proceedings before the Board, which deal with the issue of registrability. [read post]
17 Nov 2008, 12:00 pm
Moreover, "[a] cursory review suggests that the marks in at least some of the registrations are not analogous to the instant case, either because the marks may have been considered unitary and therefore not in need of a disclaimer, or because the goods may not be lollipops at all. [read post]
15 Mar 2019, 3:25 am
"The Board concluded Opposer’s TREK marks may not be considered strong for any goods other than bicycles, bicycle parts, and retail stores featuring bicycles. [read post]
2 Dec 2019, 4:23 am
Accordingly, Applicant’s proposed mark fails to function as a trademark for Applicant’s goods.Rule 2.61 Request for Information: Under Rule 2.61(b), an examining attorney "may require the applicant to furnish such information, exhibits, affidavits or declarations . . . as may be reasonably necessary to the proper examination of the application. [read post]
27 Oct 2020, 3:29 am
" Moreover, it noted that "the ordinary consumer may purchase Applicant’s hair care products and request a BOTOX injection at a cosmetic medical treatment facility or spa. [read post]
17 Feb 2011, 3:11 pm
In respect of brand extension and merchandising, Ford may argue that it needs to protect the “F-150” to this effect. [read post]
29 Mar 2012, 9:30 pm
The book argues that while some interventions may not be technically legal, they may well be legitimate (e.g. [read post]
1 May 2019, 8:00 am
By Mark I. [read post]
13 Jul 2019, 6:57 am
Mark---Mark J. [read post]
28 May 2015, 6:00 am
Trademark rights are acquired by being the first to use the mark in commerce, not be being the first to create the mark. [read post]
17 Jun 2015, 2:50 pm
The system put in place under the 1875 Trade Marks Act may be seen as the last of a sequence of earlier “technologies” that sought to administer the creative endeavours of (sections of) the English population. [read post]
27 Apr 2015, 11:27 am
And at "The Volokh Conspiracy," Eugene Volokh has a post titled "Federal Circuit will rehear 'disparaging marks' trademark case about The Slants -- and the Redskins case may be affected. [read post]
26 Jun 2014, 2:51 am
The PTO refused registration of the mark DIAMOND, finding it merely descriptive of "paper cutting machine parts, namely, steel rule dies for cutting paper products. [read post]
20 Mar 2020, 4:04 pm
Court of Appeals from the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) reminds trademark owners that adopting marks that are merely descriptive may require a high level of proof to register on the Principal Register. [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 1:03 am
" The PTO refused registration under Section 2(d), finding the mark likely to cause confusion with the essentially identical mark THE GREEN DOOR registered for "restaurant and bar services. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 2:04 am
The Board didn't waste much time on the substantive issues in sustaining a Section 2(d) opposition to registration of the mark MYCHEW in the stylized form shown below, for candy, finding it likely to cause confusion with the registered mark HI-CHEW in stylized form, also for candy. [read post]
