Search for: "Mark"
Results 5901 - 5920
of 151,774
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Nov 2016, 3:33 am
The USPTO refused registration of the mark THE BEVERLY for "denims; jeans; pants," finding the mark likely to cause confusion with the registered mark BEVERLY JEANS & Design, shown below, for "pants; shirts; tops; bottoms" [JEANS disclaimed]. [read post]
12 Jul 2019, 2:41 am
Applicant JS ADL challenged the Board's findings as to the strength of the cited mark and the similarity of the marks, as well as the Board's ultimate holding of likelihood of confusion.The court agreed with the Board that JS ADL failed to prove that the cited mark is weak. [read post]
10 Apr 2023, 4:02 am
As to the strength of the cited mark, there was no evidence of third-party uses that would weaken the mark. [read post]
26 Oct 2015, 3:51 am
But what about the marks? [read post]
23 Apr 2010, 2:38 am
Here, however, in view of Applicant's prominent use of the registered mark SEELECT on the same packaging, the two marks function as trademarks.TTABlog note: Well, how did you do? [read post]
22 Jul 2020, 2:41 am
If we circle back to the Hallgarten decision, the Assistant- Controller opined that the test for whether such a mark is distinctive is whether there has been sufficient “transformation of the parent dictionary words” for the coined mark to be considered distinctive. [read post]
18 Sep 2008, 5:35 pm
In past blogs, we have discussed various Federal Court decisions made pursuant to section 45 of the Trade-marks Act, which is intended to be a "summary and expeditious procedure for cleaning up the trade-mark register of trade-marks that have fallen into disuse". [read post]
6 Apr 2010, 2:09 am
"Applicant argued that Opposer's mark is weak in view of third-party use of the same or similar marks on similar goods. [read post]
21 Sep 2009, 10:17 pm
The Board found Applicant Barbieri's mark to be "substantially different in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression from opposers mark. [read post]
5 Aug 2015, 3:43 am
But here none of the third-party marks "are even close to as similar to Registrant's mark as is Applicant's. [read post]
18 Feb 2016, 3:10 am
What about the marks? [read post]
13 Mar 2013, 3:56 am
"That this mark and the cited mark co-exist tells us nothing about whether applicant’s mark, which does not include a unique second element such as DEJOINE, is similar to the cited mark." [read post]
21 Nov 2012, 3:20 am
None of the marks were close to the marks involved here, and none include both words in the same mark. [read post]
12 Feb 2013, 3:56 am
Considering the marks at issue, the Examining Attorney argued that the word ANGEL dominates each mark, but applicant asserted that there is no per se rule that words dominate in word-plus-design marks. [read post]
22 May 2018, 1:18 am
This can include composite marks, including both a word and design element, if the portion of the word in the mark is dominant. [read post]
12 Sep 2014, 6:01 am
As to the marks, the Board looked to the sixth duPont factor, the number and nature of similar marks on similar goods, which "involves the notion that as a result of a certain degree of third-party use of similar marks for similar goods, consumers may be able to differentiate between such marks and that confusion is not likely even if the marks contain a common element. [read post]
28 Sep 2017, 3:04 am
The USPTO refused registration of the mark shown below left, for tires," finding that the the drawing is not a substantially exact representation of the mark as used (below right) (Rule 2.51(a)), and further that the mark depicted in the drawing is a mutilation of the mark as used. [read post]
22 May 2018, 1:18 am
This can include composite marks, including both a word and design element, if the portion of the word in the mark is dominant. [read post]
2 Nov 2010, 9:21 pm
MARK KIRK WINS OBAMA’S OLD SENATE SEAT according to AP and Andrew Malcolm of the L.A. [read post]
25 Nov 2013, 10:25 am
Rehoboth Von Gott where the Board found a likelihood of confusion existed between a mark for wine and a mark for water. [read post]
