Search for: "Mark"
Results 8401 - 8420
of 151,847
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Feb 2013, 4:08 am
There was thus some conceptual similarity between the marks. [read post]
11 Oct 2020, 11:43 am
(2) If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is it necessary for the trade mark to depart significantly from the norm or customs of the economic sector concerned in order for the mark to be regarded as having distinctive character? [read post]
31 May 2023, 2:55 am
Joshua George Savoy, Oppositions Nos. 91252440 and 91255819 [Opposition to registration of the mark shown below left for various clothing items, including footwear, in view of the registered mark shown below center, and the common law mark shown below right, for footwear., and "counter-opposition" to registration of the third mark.] [read post]
3 Oct 2023, 4:00 am
Srinivasa Rao Gubbala, Opposition No. 91255288 [Opposition to registration of the mark shown below left, for various clothing items, in view of the registered mark shown below right, for overlapping clothing items.] [read post]
13 Jul 2023, 5:13 am
" The marks are identical, but how strong is the registered mark? [read post]
20 May 2019, 3:18 am
The USPTO refused registration of the mark OUT OF ORDER for various clothing items, finding the mark likely to cause confusion with the registered mark shown below, for various goods in class 14, including bracelets, necklaces, earrings, and watches. [read post]
2 Dec 2020, 3:17 am
by focusing only on the registered stylized mark. [read post]
31 Aug 2017, 2:12 am
Applicant disclaimed the word NORDIC, but the Board found that the stylization of the mark was not sufficient to render the mark inherently distinctive as a whole: "[T]he impression conveyed by Applicant’s mark is not separate from the disclaimed wording in the mark. [read post]
23 May 2017, 6:01 am
A blatant trade mark infringement… or not? [read post]
15 Dec 2023, 7:17 am
Comparing the Marks: The Board found the marks to be more dissimilar than similar in appearance and sound. [read post]
6 Apr 2016, 1:30 am
He ultimately found a likelihood of confusion between the two marks. [read post]
7 Dec 2018, 2:45 am
After all, that description reads like a description of a series of trade marks. [read post]
29 Jan 2016, 3:43 am
The possibility of revocation for non-use after five years is a separate "use it or lose it" provision clearly giving a trade mark owner reasonable time to expand the use of the mark across the scope of the registration, and giving third parties an opportunity to remove unused marks from the register. [read post]
23 Aug 2023, 8:35 pm
The one hitch is the name must be perceived as a mark for literary services. [read post]
26 Oct 2018, 6:40 am
The Board granted a petition for cancellation of a registration for the mark CARDIO TONE, finding the mark likely to cause confusion with the registered mark CARDITONE, both for nutritional supplements. [read post]
20 Jan 2021, 4:25 am
American Airlines applied to register the mark RENOAIR for "air transport of passengers, cargo and freight" under Section 2(f) of the Lanham Act, claiming that acquired distinctiveness transferred to this mark from AA's registration of the same mark for "toys, namely model airplanes. [read post]
16 Feb 2022, 4:03 am
Non-use Claim: Opposer argued that Applicant Bammann's use of his mark at only a single location in Bangor, Michigan, was insufficient to establish use of the ROMA PIZZA mark in commerce. [read post]
11 Sep 2023, 4:42 am
Monster had to prove likelihood of confusion vis-a-vis its individual marks. [read post]
3 Apr 2016, 7:52 pm
The most relevant trade mark that they own is trade mark registration number 91/3863 KNIGHTS registered from 30 October 1990 covering alcoholic beverages. [read post]
2 Oct 2018, 8:55 am
" The stylized mark application states that the non-Latin characters in the mark transliterate to GÁMOS, which means "wedding, matrimony or marriage. [read post]
