Search for: "Mark C. Good"
Results 741 - 760
of 5,961
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Feb 2010, 2:21 am
Taking advantage of the recognition that a complainant has created for its mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, but there has to be proof of targeting not simply an allegation, Target Brands, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Nov 2013, 8:20 am
[The Board granted a petition for cancellation of two registrations, one for the mark HAVANA SOUL and the other HAVANA LEON, both for cigars made with Cuban seed tobacco, as a sanction for Respondent's failure to comply with a Board discovery order].C. [read post]
20 Nov 2023, 3:55 am
The evidence and arguments provided by the registrant demonstrates valid use of the relevant goods [use of the mark, not use of the goods? [read post]
17 Sep 2020, 5:12 am
The MESSI trade mark had been registered for identical goods. [read post]
13 Nov 2019, 9:06 am
In line with the CJEU Lego Juris decision, the court recalled that “the prohibition on registration as a trade mark of any sign consisting of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result ensures that undertakings may not use trade mark law in order to perpetuate, indefinitely, exclusive rights relating to technical solutions. [read post]
28 Nov 2023, 10:17 pm
The Board noted that trade marks must guarantee the origin of the goods or services to the consumer. [read post]
3 Jul 2013, 9:28 am
Commercial use of the mark by the defendant - in connection with the sale . . . or advertising of goods or services, 5. [read post]
9 Dec 2008, 2:07 am
(Good, we Southsiders say, they deserve each other!). [read post]
23 Jun 2022, 1:59 am
Then there’s the likely destruction of perfectly good stock, the potential for inconvenience to consumers who use the injuncted product, and so on. [read post]
25 Jan 2013, 1:41 pm
by: Adam C. [read post]
29 Feb 2012, 3:00 am
As to the dilution claim, Applicants invoked the defense of parody under the "fair use" exclusion of Section 43(c), but the Board found that Applicants' use of the CRACKBERRY mark did not merit fair use protection. [read post]
8 Jan 2024, 9:18 am
CJEU, Teekanne, C-195/14). [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 3:54 pm
In the end, the Board affirmed the Examiner’s refusal to register the mark ROYAL KATE under Sections 2(a) & 2(c) of the Trademark Act. [read post]
9 Feb 2016, 6:07 am
In Bongrain SA’s Trade Mark Application [2004] EWCA Civ 1690 at [26]-[28], Jacobs LJ had, interpreting various European case law including Joined Cases C-456/01P and C-457/01 P Henkel v OHIM EU:C:2004:258, rejected the idea that a “fancy” or unusual shape of goods would automatically be taken by the public as a trade mark denoting trade origin. [read post]
7 Jun 2013, 5:15 am
My past week has been one marked by connections with colleagues. [read post]
23 Jul 2008, 3:04 pm
As a reminder, the following italicized question comes from Jane C. [read post]
11 Aug 2009, 10:50 pm
Sec. 1125(c)(2)(A)(1). [read post]
24 Jan 2017, 12:54 pm
The dispute concerns the mark MegaBabe. [read post]
10 Jan 2024, 3:30 am
Instagoods refused to consent to the request, but the Board found that Instagram established “good cause” under Trademark Rule 2.120(c)(1). [read post]
27 Mar 2008, 5:31 am
The "specimens of use," purportedly labels attached to the goods and/or packaging, are identical (as shown immediately below):The TEAS Plus application, filed electronically on March 17, 2008 and executed by C. [read post]
