Search for: "mark"
Results 6321 - 6340
of 135,956
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Jun 2022, 8:34 am
The rationale of all this is to allow the trade mark proprietor to prohibit any unauthorized use of their trade mark by a third party that is effectively able to stop such use and therefore comply with that prohibition. [read post]
6 Oct 2013, 2:19 pm
Certainly for colour marks, the consequences are not confined to new applications. [read post]
16 Nov 2016, 6:32 am
" In this case, the question was whether the Church made a sale of goods bearing the mark, in commerce regulable by Congress, before it applied to register its marks. [read post]
21 Jan 2019, 4:21 am
They claimed, inter alia, that the mark would be devoid of any distinctive character and be a descriptive term, pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation 2017/1001 on EU Trade Mark (EUTMR). [read post]
11 Apr 2011, 6:45 pm
"Appeals court upholds Facebook deal from 2008; The federal appeals panel rules that the deal between Mark Zuckerberg and Harvard colleagues Divya Narendra and Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss is valid and enforceable": Carol J. [read post]
29 Jul 2008, 11:00 am
Consumers familiar with the ZABAR'S mark are not likely to notice that the "R" is absent from Applicant's mark. [read post]
30 Jan 2023, 4:50 am
The court’s decision follows the logic of two recent Supreme Court cases on point: Tam (the SLANTS – disparaging marks) and Brunetti (FUCT – scandalous marks). [read post]
1 Jun 2022, 10:11 am
On appeal, the Federal Circuit has affirmed — The Whisky mark is cancelled, and Barclay’s mark remains. [read post]
12 Aug 2009, 11:01 pm
Moreover, being an advocate of the distinctiveness of telescoped marks, I'm not sure I would have found the marks sufficiently similar. [read post]
21 Dec 2010, 1:59 am
As to the marks, since the goods are identical, the degree of similarity of the marks necessary to support a likelihood of confusion finding is decreased. [read post]
17 Aug 2007, 4:34 am
The stars in the applied-for mark are not sufficient to distinguish the marks: they are merely background material, and tend to "reinforce" the component "USA. [read post]
6 Jan 2009, 8:01 am
" The panel members agreed that the mark is merely descriptive of the goods, but split on the issue of likelihood of confusion with the registered mark MOCA & Design, shown immediately below, for "coffee and coffee derivatives" [MOCA disclaimed]. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 3:07 am
The Board found his mark likely to cause confusion with the previously-used mark TELMEX for telephone calling card services. [read post]
17 Dec 2008, 11:00 am
Once again the landlord bested the tenant, this time in a service mark ownership battle. [read post]
16 Feb 2012, 2:49 am
The USPTO refused registration of the mark LUCKY PAWS for "pet treats, namely, organic material to be mixed with other organic material and microwaved," finding the mark likely to cause confusion with the registered mark LUCKY PAWZ for "pet boarding services; pet day care services. [read post]
7 Oct 2022, 3:40 am
What Sierra Sage owns is a registration for which a Section 15 declaration has been filed, making its right to use the mark "incontestable. [read post]
17 Mar 2014, 11:31 am
§ 1114(1), [the plaintiff] must show that it has a valid mark that is entitled to protection under the Lanham Act and that [the defendant’s] actions are likely to cause confusion with [the plaintiff’s] mark. [read post]
25 Oct 2011, 3:33 am
" RIM claimed that the mark would be likely to cause confusion with its registered mark BLACKBERRY for handheld electronic devices and related goods and services. [read post]
10 May 2011, 2:25 am
Sure enough, the Board affirmed a Section 2(d) refusal to register the mark EZ GRO for "living flowers and plants and plant seeds," finding the mark likely to cause confusion with the registered mark EEZY-GRO for "flower pots and planters. [read post]
20 Apr 2010, 2:20 am
" The majority found that, despite the niche fame of Opposer's registered mark VIGILANCE for "heart monitors" and the similarity between the marks, likelihood of confusion with the registered mark was de minimis in view of the differences in goods, channels of trade, and classes of customers and the sophistication of the purchasers. [read post]
