Search for: "Mark May"
Results 4721 - 4740
of 63,784
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Apr 2016, 6:00 am
A licensing agreement alone may not be enough but its one less bad fact if nothing else. [read post]
9 Jun 2014, 4:13 pm
Jerzy Makarczyk, Opposition No. 91208352 (May 27, 2014)[precedential]. [read post]
15 Sep 2010, 2:20 am
Applicant's products may be used in the home, and so the channels of trade for the involved goods and services may be the same. [read post]
28 Apr 2010, 9:39 am
The Austin Statesman article goes into the background surrounding the operation of The Alamo and why The Daughters of the Republic of Texas may or may not have standing to claim any ownership in the mark. [read post]
18 Sep 2018, 5:52 am
As such, it is often particularly important for families searching for nursing homes for a loved one with a mental illness to find a facility with high marks and a history of quality care. [read post]
26 Jul 2021, 3:58 am
Background The disputed trade mark ‘摩卡MOCCA (and picture)’ as shown below, filed by a company named Rui Chang in March 2011, was approved for registration in China in May 2012 (No. 9199914). [read post]
25 Apr 2014, 2:42 am
In re Murchison, Serial No. 85748810 (March 24, 2014) [not precedential].The Board observed that the Office may prove scandalousness under Section 2(a) by showing that a proposed mark is vulgar. [read post]
16 Jun 2023, 6:29 am
Sometimes an artist’s name may simply identify the source of the performance contained on the record, which is not enough to establish that the artist’s name functions as a mark for the recording. [read post]
21 Aug 2018, 4:58 am
You may recall that, earlier this year, the BOARD found THE JOINT to be generic for "restaurant, bar and catering services. [read post]
28 Jan 2019, 6:14 am
It claimed inter alia that the EUTM proprietor’s mark was based on the earlier Spanish industrial design right (No D0024 087):In May 2018, the EUIPO Cancellation Division rejected the request in its entirety on the basis that:by not submitting the translation of the registered certificate for the earlier Spanish industrial design, the cancellation applicant did not prove the validity and scope of protection of this earlier right,mere reference to national law would not be… [read post]
3 Jan 2020, 4:10 am
" Applicant conceded that, inter alia, some of its goods are sweeteners that may contain dried apple peels and some could contain sugar in combination with dried fruit. [read post]
24 Dec 2014, 4:09 am
Hargis may be found here. [read post]
6 Jul 2016, 3:00 am
An increase in the burden to maintain their marks may disadvantage small businesses. [read post]
6 Jan 2017, 3:19 am
[The Board held that an applicant may not separately challenge that determination of "clear error," either by petition to the Director or on appeal to the Board. [read post]
21 Mar 2016, 8:56 am
During the trademark prosecution, the USPTO examining attorney initially suggested that “due to the length of the proposed mark, consumers may consider the sound to be a mere entertaining prelude to the sound recording, more suitable as a copyrightable work than as a trademarkable source indicator. [read post]
5 Jan 2011, 5:55 am
FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20010510Standard Characters Claimed Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARKSerial Number 78889029Filing Date May 22, 2006Current Filing Basis 1AOriginal Filing Basis 1APublished for Opposition January 2, 2007Registration Number 3220059Registration Date March 20, 2007Owner (REGISTRANT) Cafe Hon, Inc. [read post]
9 Feb 2010, 2:13 am
"This would mean that applicant's goods may be sold in regular retail supermarkets and other food stores, but, as shown by the evidence, such goods may also be sold directly by restaurants. [read post]
11 Jul 2012, 12:28 pm
The family of the deceased victim may be able to make a claim for Survivor Loss Benefits. [read post]
6 Jan 2015, 8:46 am
However, Merpel adds that there are other forces at play here: the actual purchaser of non-Ford replacement parts bearing Ford trade marks may not be confused or deceived, but what about the position of the person who buys the vehicle from him? [read post]
7 May 2024, 3:57 am
Trademark Rule 41(a)(1) provides that "In appropriate cases, ownership of one or more active prior registrations on the Principal Register . . . of the same mark may be accepted as prima facie evidence of distinctiveness if the goods or services are sufficiently similar to the goods or services in the application; however, further evidence may be required. [read post]
