Search for: "Mark Case"
Results 7581 - 7600
of 70,966
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Jan 2008, 4:54 am
In any case, there were "additional facts" of record in this case, namely the "notoriety" of Opposer's mark, that compel a different result.Meanwhile, Opposer's registration was cancelled in November 2007 for failure to renew. [read post]
26 Apr 2007, 9:28 am
KG v Swingward Ltd (that's the short version of the case name, which covers a whole side of A4): this was a re-referred case from the UK on a variety of questions relating to trade mark infringement where a trader buys an original pharma manufacturer's trade mark-protected goods and repackages them, relabels or overstickers them or otherwise makes the appearance of the packaging look quite different. [read post]
27 Jan 2014, 6:05 am
In sum, we attempt to persuade the mediator of the merits of our case, with the hope she will step into the next room, caucus with our opponent, and, acting as our “super advocate,” pound them into submission. [read post]
27 Jan 2014, 6:05 am
In sum, we attempt to persuade the mediator of the merits of our case, with the hope she will step into the next room, caucus with our opponent, and, acting as our “super advocate,” pound them into submission. [read post]
4 Nov 2011, 9:23 am
On balance, I’m inclined to stick with standard American style — even though the case for so-called “logical punctuation,” as outlined in Ben Yagoda’s Slate piece, is persuasive. [read post]
23 Dec 2018, 3:52 pm
appeared first on The Law Offices of Mark Sherman. [read post]
7 May 2012, 6:51 am
The court sided with DNA—Mobility’s receipt of the BIOLOGIC mark from Dahon Taiwan was an intentional act for these purposes (analogizing to cases about possession of chattels). [read post]
10 Sep 2007, 4:43 am
"The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the district court holding that the mark "Frosty Treats" was not protectable, the clown graphic was not likely to cause consumer confusion, and Frosty Treat's mark or trade dress was not being diluted. [read post]
6 Feb 2009, 4:00 am
The test in cases like this should not be whether people immediately know what the goods are; the test should be whether anyone else needs to use this mark to describe their goods. [read post]
15 Apr 2009, 3:30 am
"The Board looked to the "eye-dropper" case, in which an attempt to register the dropper by itself, apart from the watering can, was considered a mutilation of the mark. [read post]
2 Mar 2011, 2:11 am
" The Examining Attorney understandably cited only the "catering services" in the refusal to register.As to whether the cited mark is "very strong or unique," in which case the Office could point to Mucky Duck to support the refusal, how is the Office going to prove that? [read post]
14 Sep 2023, 4:59 am
In each case, the relevant information is automatically retrieved from the USPTO database. [read post]
27 Mar 2018, 8:19 am
We analyze these data in light of the most frequently used words and syllables in American English, the most frequently occurring surnames in the United States, and an original dataset consisting of phonetic representations of each applied-for or registered word mark included in the PTO’s Trademark Case Files Dataset. [read post]
9 Aug 2022, 6:42 am
Every five years or so, like clockwork, the Board decides a Section 2(b) case. [read post]
26 Jun 2019, 3:26 am
In one of the more interesting cases in recent memory, the Board rendered a split decision regarding registrability of the "design" shown immediately below, for snow groomers. [read post]
Precedential No. 12: Finding Clothing and Books Related, TTAB Sustains 2(d) Opposition to ENGIRLNEER
16 Mar 2020, 4:09 am
Opposer Shannon DeVivo was able to prove prior use of the mark for her STEM-related services through her declaration testimony regarding her interactive website, its downloadable book, and its depiction of several cartoon character "engirlneers" that provide educational information in STEM fields for young women and girls pursuing a career in these fields.As to opposer's downloadable book (cover depicted above), the Board likened this case to In re Polar Music… [read post]
7 Dec 2017, 3:15 am
"Applicant also provided evidence of three third-party uses of marks comprising the term BONAPARTE but they were not similar to the marks involved here, and in any case a mere three uses is not enough to have probative value.The Board concluded that the totality of the evidence failed to show that the term BONAPARTE is significantly weakened or diluted. [read post]
11 Feb 2021, 4:58 am
" Nor is the name listed in the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, which gives the USOC special statutory exclusive rights to certain specified Olympic-related designations.The record lacked evidence like that in the ROYAL KATE and MARGARITAVILLE cases, where the public "knew the person or institution by the nickname or close approximation of a name or identity in the mark. [read post]
20 Jul 2015, 2:51 am
" In these performing group cases, it must first be determined whether the group name is personal to the individual members or not. [read post]
24 Jul 2020, 4:37 am
The right to exclusive use, in such cases, may be determined in an appropriate action in a district court. [read post]
