Search for: "Mark C. Good"
Results 581 - 600
of 5,942
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Aug 2019, 3:36 pm
To succeed on this basis, one must show prior use that is sufficient to create an association in the minds of the relevant consumers between the mark and the goods or services. [read post]
23 Jan 2019, 11:26 pm
Trying is Not UsingTrade mark use has been considered to be “genuine” if (1) the use is related to “create or preserve an outlet” for those goods or services for which it is registered; and (2) the mark is used in accordance with its essential function, which is to guarantee the identity of origin of the goods or services for which it is registered (C-689/15 – Gözze). [read post]
27 Mar 2019, 6:59 am
" The goods overlap, but are the marks confusable? [read post]
3 Aug 2017, 3:24 am
On appeal from [2016] EWCA Crim 1617 The case considered whether a criminal offence can be committed under the Trade Marks Act 1994, s 92(1)(b) or (c) (selling, offering for sale or distribution/possession with a view) where the proprietor of the registered trade mark has given its consent to the application of the sign which is its registered trade mark or has itself applied its own registered trade mark to the goods, but has not given its… [read post]
29 May 2017, 4:00 am
It shows that: (1) law societies are the “lynch pin” of the justice system—when they fail, it fails; and that, (2) law societies’ major problems: (a) will be national; (b) require national solutions; and, (c) will be problems for which lawyers and law societies lack the necessary expertise. [read post]
23 Oct 2013, 1:52 pm
Comparison of goods As there was a sufficient degree of similarity between the marks, such that consumers would be likely to believe that identical or similar goods bearing either the word or logo mark emanated from a single undertaking, or that the two marks were linked economically, the big issue was to decide whether the goods were identical or similar. [read post]
19 Dec 2017, 1:25 am
Even with this focus the above Article is still subject to Article 7(3), where a mark can avoid Article 7(1)(c) if it has inherent distinctive character.The Court then moved on to assessing whether the mark in question has inherent distinctive character. [read post]
7 Oct 2014, 11:49 am
in which the General Court stated that the goods can be considered as identical when the goods designated by the earlier mark are included in a more general category designated by the trade mark application or when the goods designated by the trade mark application are included in a more general category designated by the earlier mark. [read post]
12 May 2020, 4:18 am
Moreover, there were no price limitations on the goods, and these are the type of inexpensive goods that are purchased without a great deal of care.As to the marks, each consists of three short words, beginning with JUST and ending with IT. [read post]
11 Jun 2023, 6:09 pm
§ 1052(c), which provides that a mark cannot be registered if it “[c]onsists of or comprises a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent. [read post]
5 May 2010, 2:33 am
Despite the sophistication of the purchasers, the Board concluded that, given the identical goods, services and trade channels, the similarity of the marks, and the renown of opposer’s marks, confusion as to source is likely. [read post]
2 Mar 2020, 10:25 am
The “Sussex Royal” markThe application for the word mark “Sussex Royal” was for several classes of goods and services, including, just to mention a few (see the full list here), goods and services in classes 16 (instructional and teaching materials), 25 (clothing), 35 (campaigning), and 36 (charitable fund raising).The couple’s spokeswoman announced last week that: “Given the specific UK government rules surrounding use of the word… [read post]
19 Feb 2020, 12:32 am
However following the judgment of Master Clark in November 2018, the application was dismissed and permission was given to the Defendants to amend their defences.The present case therefore addressed the following questions:Whether, within the meaning of Article 9(2)(b) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR), the disputed Big Horn mark was at least similar to the Red Bull trade marks, was used on similar goods, and gave rise to a likelihood of confusion;Whether,… [read post]
16 Feb 2010, 9:17 am
A trademark basically performs the following functions: a) It indicates the source of origin of goods. b) It distinguishes one merchant’s goods from the other. c) It indicates that all goods bearing the particular trademark are of a particular quality desired by the customers. d) It advertises and promotes the goods in selling of them. [read post]
3 Apr 2024, 3:44 am
The Board found the mark to be too dissimilar to the KATE SPADE word mark and the "spade logo" mark to support Kate Spade's Section 2(d) likelihood-of-confusion and Section 43(c) dilution-by-blurring claims. [read post]
2 Apr 2019, 11:43 am
Consumers were confused as to commercial origin; therefore there was clearly use for the purpose of distinguishing the goods in question (per Céline). [read post]
15 Mar 2023, 7:32 am
In re Intimate Science, Serial No. 90123272 (March 13, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cynthia C. [read post]
23 Jul 2021, 2:18 am
In short, MILEY CYRUS was filed for various goods and services in classes lasses 9, 16, 28 and 41 and got an opposition based on a stylized mark CYRUS in classes 20 and 41. [read post]
18 Sep 2018, 11:25 pm
D.ssa Sara ParrelloIn BASIC NET SpA vs EUIPO, (case C-547/17 of Sept. 6, 2018), shortly after the recent Nestlè/Mondelez KIT KAT case (C‑84/17P, C-85/17 P and C-95/17 P; see ‘CJEU on the Kit Kat shape and acquired distinctiveness of EU trade marks for shapes’ in this blog), the CJEU again tackled the issue of how and where to prove acquired distinctiveness of EUTMs. [read post]
11 Jan 2015, 4:21 am
It found that the word “bioderma” was a neologism or the result of the combination of the Greek word elements “bio” (life) and “derma” (skin), whose meanings were well understood by the Greek and Cypriot publics, even though the mark was written in Latin characters.Thus, recalling that it is sufficient that a sign be descriptive in a part of the Community and in any of the official languages for its registration to be refused or cancelled (Article 7.2 of… [read post]
