Search for: "Mark Humphreys"
Results 41 - 60
of 439
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Mar 2020, 3:49 am
A hospitality services’ applications to register the mark “THE JOINT” for two different classes of services were properly refused because the mark was merely descriptive of the applied-for restaurant and entertainment services and the applicant did not demonstrate acquired distinctiveness, the U.S. [read post]
20 May 2020, 6:18 am
Brand owners with a broad protection shall bear in mind that when pursuing a trade mark infringement claim, their marks may be partially or wholly vulnerable to invalidity attack based on bad faith. [read post]
27 Jul 2018, 9:23 am
While unfortunate for EUTM owners of potentially affected marks, the result is less than surprising. [read post]
15 Oct 2019, 12:55 am
BrochinSingle display of trademark on race car and jumpsuit did not establish intent to use the mark for the registered product. [read post]
3 Dec 2018, 6:56 am
The board erred in analyzing the fame of the registered marks, third-party usage, and similarity of the marks. [read post]
29 Apr 2012, 6:20 pm
Humphrey Metrodome. [read post]
22 Jan 2019, 12:35 am
Thomas LongThe Board erred by disregarding evidence of the lender’s longtime use of its mark in the same location as a similar registered mark, without consumer confusion. [read post]
16 Jul 2020, 5:08 am
This point has created fear amongst trade mark owners. [read post]
24 May 2020, 11:21 pm
Article 8(3) should then apply where the mark filed by the agent has slight modifications, additions or deletions, which do not substantially alter the distinctiveness of the earlier mark. [read post]
11 Feb 2020, 1:37 am
Brian CraigAn exclusive licensee that did not own the mark outright when the suit began lacked standing to sue for infringement. [read post]
12 Jul 2018, 12:25 am
Athanasia Giannopoulou and Verena von BomhardPuma´s earlier mark Applicant´s mark By judgment of 28 June 2018 (C‑564/16 P), the CJEU rejected an appeal filed by the EUIPO. [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 12:11 am
Joseph ArshawskyThere was no evidence that the firm’s marks achieved secondary meaning, and the same marks were being used as trademarks as well as service marks in the advertising space. [read post]
30 Jul 2019, 1:45 am
Despite minor distinctions in spelling and pronunciation between the proposed mark and the previously registered mark ARTESANO NEW YORK CITY, for similar goods, the overall commercial impression of both marks was that of clothing made by skilled tradespersons in New York. [read post]
13 Nov 2018, 12:24 am
(“SMRI”) did not provide the jury with sufficient proof that its unregistered marks “Sturgis,” “Sturgis Motorcycle Rally,” and “Sturgis Rally & Races” marks were valid marks that acquired secondary meaning, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has ruled, reversing a district court’s judgment that a gift shop and three individuals willfully infringed and diluted the marks. [read post]
23 Jun 2020, 12:56 am
Harm to the mark owner’s goodwill would be irreparable and not redressable by money damages. [read post]
26 Jun 2018, 5:29 am
Cheryl BeiseSubstantial evidence supported the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s finding that the mark “AQUAPEL” and design for leather and imitation leather hides, furniture covers, and various home goods was confusingly similar to the mark “AQUAPEL,” registered in standard characters, for different types of home goods, the U.S. [read post]
23 Nov 2015, 3:25 pm
Thank you Edward Humphrey-Evans (Katpat!) [read post]
3 Sep 2018, 11:45 pm
Nicholas KasterThe Trademark Trial and Appeal Board did not err when it found that the WU DANG TAI CHI GREEN TEA mark was confusingly similar to the registered mark TAI CHI, according to the U.S. [read post]
25 Jul 2018, 12:16 am
Supreme Court cases holding that laches does not apply within the limitations periods for patent and copyright claims, laches is available as a defense to a cancellation claim during the five years following registration of a mark, while the mark is still “contestable,” a panel of the U.S. [read post]
23 Jan 2020, 4:09 am
Joseph ArshawskyA district court should not have applied the doctrine of claims preclusion in the primary dispute over the mark IDHAYAM, based on a prior TTAB proceeding, but the mark owner waived its claims as to two other trademarks. [read post]
