Search for: "Mark Case"
Results 6581 - 6600
of 70,962
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Jan 2023, 4:37 am
As it recently explained in the "FUCK" case: [T]he Trademark Act does not specifically articulate “failure to function” in haec verba as a ground for refusal of a proposed mark. [read post]
11 Jul 2023, 9:12 am
These are open issues in EU case law. [read post]
29 Nov 2010, 10:38 am
The legislative history speaks of the public interest in the integrity of marks and the need for a complete remedy in cases where the conduct is malicious, fraudulent, deliberate, and willful. [read post]
9 Feb 2017, 2:58 am
In any case, applicant's own evidence showed that Italian is a common, modern language. [read post]
29 Aug 2022, 2:07 pm
A preliminary look at the documents revealed 184 with classification markings including 67 documents marked “CONFIDENTIAL,” 92 marked “SECRET,” and 25 marked as “TOP SECRET,” the affidavit says. [read post]
5 Sep 2023, 3:54 am
A TTAB judge once told me that one can predict the outcome of a Section 2(d) case 95% of the time just by looking at the marks and the goods/services. [read post]
31 Jul 2013, 6:00 am
That is, the trademark describes some feature or quality of the goods and services -- in this case, that flint and knives are often sold together. [read post]
17 Jun 2022, 3:36 am
A TTAB judge once told me that one can predict the outcome of a Section 2(d) case 95% of the time by looking just at the marks and the goods. [read post]
8 Jan 2016, 4:59 am
The Board sustained this Section 2(d) opposition to registration of the mark FLATIZZA for "pizza," finding that Applicant Janco, LLC had not used the applied-for mark in commerce prior to to the filing of its use-based application to register. [read post]
14 Jul 2016, 3:41 am
I once heard a TTAB judge say that the outcome of most Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion cases can be predicted just by looking at the marks and the identified goods/services, without more. [read post]
1 May 2015, 3:00 am
According to the USPTO's motion, "intervention is warranted because the district court’s decision in this trademark case raises questions of institutional importance to the Patent and Trademark Office and because it misunderstands the manner in which the Lanham Act implements provisions regarding well-known marks in the Paris Convention"The Director seeks to exercise her unconditional statutory right to intervene, 15 U.S.C. [read post]
7 May 2015, 5:39 am
[Refusal to register THE JOCKEY CLUB RACING COLORS for “luggage, bags, namely, courier bags, beach bags, tote bags, backpacks, and travel bags; leather goods, namely, wallets, briefcases, attaché cases, handbags, leather covers for diaries, notebook covers, garment bags for travel and saddles, all made of leather," in view of the registered mark JOCKEY for various clothing items, including underwear].Read comments and post your comment here.TTABlog comment: See… [read post]
30 Mar 2020, 4:14 am
Some ten years ago, a TTAB judge said to me that one can predict the outcome of a Section 2(d) case 95% of the time just by looking at the marks and the goods or services. [read post]
23 Sep 2016, 3:30 am
I once heard a TTAB judge say that the outcome of most Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion cases may be predicted just by looking at the marks and the identified goods/services, without more. [read post]
19 Nov 2014, 4:07 am
I once heard a TTAB judge state that the outcomes of most Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion cases can be predicted just by looking at the marks and the identified goods/services, without more. [read post]
15 Jan 2014, 4:30 am
In the case of stress, the qualifying sub-listing would be anxiety. [read post]
6 Jan 2019, 8:04 pm
The Government then petitioned the Supreme Court to review the case, and the court has now granted certiorari with the direct question: Whether Section 1052(a)’s prohibition on the federal registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” marks is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. [read post]
20 Oct 2014, 2:16 am
I once heard a TTAB judge state that the outcomes of most Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion cases can be predicted just by looking at the marks and the identified goods/services, without more. [read post]
15 Jan 2016, 5:22 am
" While acknowledging that this is a close case, we find that DIAMONDESS is not deceptive within the meaning of Section 2(a). [read post]
5 Dec 2013, 4:07 am
It has been said that that the outcome of most Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion cases may be predicted just by looking at the marks and the identified goods/services, without more. [read post]
