Search for: "Mark May"
Results 5161 - 5180
of 63,787
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
"SEXY 'N SASSY" Confusingly Similar to "SEXY HAIR" for Hair Care Products, Says TTAB, Unconvincingly
30 Jul 2008, 7:00 am
"While opposer's mark may be highly suggestive, opposer's evidence is not so weak that it is entitled to only a very narrow scope of protection. [read post]
28 Nov 2018, 10:08 pm
As such, the ACCC found the rules could be of detriment to the public, and that the rules may not meet the principles relating to unfair practices, product safety and production information set out in the Australian Consumer Law. [read post]
28 Nov 2018, 10:08 pm
As such, the ACCC found the rules could be of detriment to the public, and that the rules may not meet the principles relating to unfair practices, product safety and production information set out in the Australian Consumer Law. [read post]
26 Jan 2015, 2:15 am
The Editors may also be contacted here. [read post]
11 May 2015, 6:45 pm
Friday, May 15, 2015, marks the filing deadline for many tax exempt organizations. [read post]
31 Aug 2022, 3:06 am
"Therefore, customers familiar with Registrant’s goods may well expect that Applicant’s goods offered under an identical mark are related and would be provided by Registrant or vice versa i.e., that Registrant’s goods are provided by Applicant. [read post]
8 Aug 2013, 2:28 am
The number of similar marks in the marketplace weighed against a finding of likely confusion.As to the marks, the Board noted that the initial element of a mark may be more strongly impressed upon the minds of consumers than the remainder of the mark. [read post]
22 Sep 2017, 3:22 am
Because one cannot register a mark that it does not own, the ownership issue is central to deciding the registrability of the mark in dispute. [read post]
7 Oct 2013, 9:31 pm
It seems that whoever is responsible for the billboard may have managed to colour within the lines, as far as trade mark law and the Advertising Standards Authority’s code is concerned." [read post]
13 Jul 2017, 10:00 pm
This finding makes clear that parties may not avoid liability for trademark infringement based on the fact that they operate in different parts of the country. [read post]
26 Nov 2019, 4:29 am
The Board observed that an applicant “has some latitude in selecting the mark it wants to register,” and “may seek to register any portion of a composite mark if that portion presents a separate and distinct commercial impression which indicates the source of applicant’s goods or services and distinguishes applicant’s goods or services from those of others. [read post]
26 Aug 2022, 2:25 am
In short, the specimen does not use either the word mark EL CABO or the composite mark as a source indicator for the television program. [read post]
29 Jan 2021, 2:59 am
Briefs and other papers for each case may be found at TTABVUE via the links provided.February 2, 2021 - 12 PM: In re Baja Trademarks LLC, Serial No. 87100812 [Section 2(d) refusal of SCORE (in standard character form) for "Restaurant and bar services," in view of the registered marks SCORES, SCORES NEW YORK, and SCORES SHOWROOM, U.S. for bar and restaurant services.]February 3, 2021 - 2 PM: In re MN Apparel LLC, Serial No. 87876633 [Refusal to register MOSTLY MN ONE WITH… [read post]
5 Feb 2018, 3:01 am
" Since high-end retail stores often sell the types of goods at issue, they are an appropriate trade channel and therefore one in which registrant’s goods may travel. [read post]
25 Jan 2013, 2:59 am
A Section 2(e)(4) surname refusal may be overcome by proof of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f). [read post]
15 Nov 2016, 3:24 am
Briefs and other papers for these cases may be found at TTABVUE via the links provided. [read post]
20 Jul 2017, 3:24 am
Marks that contain registrable matter in addition to deceptively misdescriptive components may be registered with an appropriate disclaimer of the deceptively misdescriptive matter. [read post]
27 Feb 2024, 7:12 am
INTA argues that while freedom of expression may constitute "due cause", the CJEU should be careful not to use "due cause" as a back door to incorporate something that was deliberately not included in EU trade mark law.CopyrightEleonora Rosati discussed the Advocate General opinion in the latest CJEU case (GEMA v GL, C-135/23) on communication to the public, which concerns the installation of TV sets by the operator of a rental apartment building. [read post]
3 Apr 2020, 3:18 am
"While consumers may pronounce 'ARTIZEN' in a way that sounds similar to 'ARTISAN' they will also see the play on word (sic) with the addition of 'ZEN' instead of 'SAN.'" *** "Accordingly, the double meaning of the mark ARTIZEN as a whole creates a suggestive significance and separate and distinct commercial impression apart from the mark sounding similar to 'ARTISAN' such that any descriptive… [read post]
4 Jan 2023, 1:36 am
The General Court questioned whether the use of a shape of a smiley, registered as an EU trade mark, altered the distinctive character of that mark. [read post]
