Search for: "Register of Copyrights"
Results 5141 - 5160
of 12,595
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Feb 2024, 3:53 am
TTABlog comment: Any predictions Text Copyright John L. [read post]
6 Jun 2024, 3:14 am
" Text Copyright John L. [read post]
27 Feb 2013, 3:30 am
However, considering the amended description, the Board found no likelihood of confusion.And so the Board granted the motion to amend and dismissed the opposition.Read comments and post your comment here.Text Copyright John L. [read post]
4 Nov 2013, 7:52 am
Text Copyright John L. [read post]
6 Mar 2017, 3:34 am
Read comments and post your comment here.TTABlog comment: One suspects that applicant has other specimens of use that would satisfy the USPTO.Text Copyright John L. [read post]
9 Jun 2015, 2:45 am
Text Copyright John L. [read post]
26 Apr 2017, 3:06 am
Text Copyright John L. [read post]
17 Jul 2014, 3:55 am
Text Copyright John L. [read post]
19 Feb 2016, 3:45 am
Text Copyright John L. [read post]
5 Aug 2016, 3:14 am
Text Copyright John L. [read post]
20 Oct 2022, 4:32 am
Text Copyright John L. [read post]
3 May 2016, 3:29 am
Text Copyright John L. [read post]
17 Nov 2022, 3:19 am
Text Copyright John L. [read post]
TTAB Vacates Prince of Wales Section 2(b) Decision and Remands Application to the Examining Attorney
21 Mar 2018, 4:06 am
Text Copyright John L. [read post]
27 Dec 2012, 5:00 am
In this consolidated appeal, the Board affirmed nine (9) Section 2(e)(1) refusals to register, finding the marks GRAND PRIX SPORTS and eight other GRAND PRIX-formative marks to be merely descriptive of entertainment services related to rugby, soccer, football, and basketball. [read post]
19 Feb 2015, 3:00 am
And so the Board found confusion likely and it affirmed the refusal.Read comments and post your comment hereText Copyright John L. [read post]
1 Aug 2019, 3:26 am
Text Copyright John L. [read post]
21 Oct 2020, 12:02 am
Register here for the event. [read post]
11 May 2016, 4:03 am
Belmora's FLANAXBased on its reading of the Supreme Court’s Lexmark decision, the lower court had dismissed Bayer’s Section 43(a) false association and false advertising claims under FRCP 12(b)(6) and entered judgment on the pleadings as to Bayer’s Section 14(3) claim, ruling that the Lanham Act does not allow an owner of a foreign mark not registered in the United States, who does not use the mark in the United States [Bayer], to assert priority rights over a mark… [read post]
6 Feb 2019, 4:17 am
It seems to me that applicant's mark would be perceived as SEXI-FIT, not SEX-IFIT.Text Copyright John L. [read post]
