Search for: "mark"
Results 6441 - 6460
of 135,982
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Jun 2013, 1:19 am
In re Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises, Inc., Serial No. 85291663 (May 17, 2013 [not precedential].The Board first insisted that PIZZA BAR be disclaimed in Applicant's mark, rejecting the contention that the mark, as a whole, is unitary.As to the comparison of the marks at issue, because Applicant's mark is in standard character form, the Board must assume that it could be used in any manner, including in the same form of display as that of the cited… [read post]
13 Jan 2015, 3:28 am
That the marks are not in use? [read post]
13 Jul 2021, 4:09 am
It observed that the proposed mark and the prior standard character mark differ only by the disclaimed terms "RESORT" and "HOTEL," dnd the proposed mark does not differ meaningfully from the word-plus-design mark. [read post]
17 Dec 2019, 6:40 am
" Therefore the Board rejected its claim.Opposer relied on its use of its mark CRAFT BEARING COMPANY since 1994, but applicant maintained that the mark is generic or merely descriptive. [read post]
24 Jul 2023, 3:54 am
The Board noted the obvious similarities and differences in the involved marks, concluding that "because Opposer’s marks are strong and the goods are identical, consumers may perceive Applicant’s marks as designating a product line extension of Opposer’s watches. [read post]
20 Aug 2014, 2:49 am
Applicant, in turn, claimed that the cited mark is weak in view of numerous VS marks used on similar goods, but she failed to provide any supporting evidence. [read post]
6 Mar 2020, 4:22 am
’” Applicant argued, however, that consumers would not "stop and translate" the mark, and therefore that the marks are not confusingly similar. [read post]
19 Aug 2021, 4:12 am
The USPTO refused registration of the mark GENRESTORE, finding confusion likely with the registered mark RESTOREGEN, both for dietary supplements. [read post]
TTAB Affirms Refusal to Register Blue Bundle of Dental Floss Due to Lack of Acquired Distinctiveness
19 Jan 2024, 4:15 am
" So, too, with regard to a product configuration mark. [read post]
12 Jul 2013, 3:20 am
But what about the marks? [read post]
25 Jul 2014, 3:06 am
In short, the mark stands on its own. [read post]
19 Sep 2024, 3:53 am
" As to the marks, although the first word of a mark may be dominant, "here the word KID is a short, mono-syllabic word that does little to visually distinguish the marks. [read post]
22 Nov 2023, 4:13 am
" With regard the Board's consideration of the prosecution history of the TREK mark, wherein Trek argued that its mark was not confusable with five other marks containing the word TREK, the Board found that the RANGER TREK mark could co-exist with TREK as well. [read post]
13 Aug 2021, 3:49 am
Applicant David Ceniceros argued, inter alia, that the marks differ in appearance and sound, and further that the cited mark is used only in connection with "Celtic-themed music. [read post]
12 May 2022, 3:55 am
" The purported mark is molded into the bottom of applicant's water bottles (see photo below right) and there was no evidence that purchasers would encounter the mark and perceive it as a source indicator. [read post]
17 Jul 2019, 2:56 am
In re Mauna Kea Rum Company, LLC, Serial No. 87475384 (June 27, 2019) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Jonathan Hudis).The Marks: The Board found the term MAUNA KEA to be the dominant element of the applied-for mark and the cited mark. [read post]
26 Apr 2019, 3:53 am
" Applicant argued, without success, that the mark POWER TECH is so inherently weak that it should not preclude registration of the applied-for mark. [read post]
13 Apr 2021, 3:37 am
Are the marks close enough for confusion? [read post]
11 Jun 2014, 2:57 am
Two marks are legally equivalent when a "consumer would consider them both the same mark. [read post]
10 Nov 2016, 3:22 am
TMEP Section 807.12(d).The issue before the Board was whether FILAMENT TOWER "is a complete mark or merely part of a larger mark. [read post]
