Search for: "Mark"
Results 8921 - 8940
of 151,849
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Aug 2017, 3:19 am
Those two cases involved oppositions to marks that were not identical to the opposers' marks. [read post]
30 May 2019, 3:28 am
”As to appearance and sound, the Board found the marks dissimilar. [read post]
21 Oct 2020, 2:42 am
In some of the registered marks, the word CITRUS is used descriptively. [read post]
20 Aug 2013, 11:09 am
But is the use of such prominent marks as “iPhone” and ‘iPad” in this context simply evidence that these marks have acquired status as a well-known mark? [read post]
9 Apr 2014, 2:08 am
However, for purposes of a likelihood of confusion analysis, the mark can be considered descriptive.The mark PERKSCARD is likewise descriptive because it describes a card used to obtain perks or benefits.Given the weakness of the term "perks" in Petitioner's marks, the Board concluded that Respondent's mark PERKSPOT is sufficiently different from the marks PERKS and PERKSCARD to avoid a likelihood of confusion. [read post]
9 Dec 2014, 3:50 am
In the event it was the latter who prevailed.Turning to s 43(1) of the Lanham Act, Neil showed how far it protects unregistered marks and trade dress, sending out a message that trade marks are liked, plaintiffs are welcomed -- with just one downside: it doesn't offer any opportunities for injured consumers to sue [citing the recent Neil-Jeremy Katpost on the consumer protection of trade marks, here]. [read post]
26 Dec 2023, 3:47 am
The record showed that the applicant registered the mark DENT-X for goods including “x-ray machines” more than a decade before filing its application for the ROLL-X mark. [read post]
19 Oct 2016, 1:26 am
It is arguable that, as there are plenty of other marks that use the same style of silhouette which have been registered, that the mark should be, potentially, registrable as well. [read post]
19 Sep 2023, 4:03 am
Again, the Board was not impressed: "Applicant’s use of the mark for only a few years—since 2019—suggests that the mark is unlikely to have acquired distinctiveness in the minds of consumers. [read post]
6 Jun 2017, 2:59 am
This factor slightly favored opposer.The Marks: The Board found LUSH to be the dominant portion of applicant's mark, noting that the first part of a mark is the portion most likely to be remembered. [read post]
23 Feb 2017, 10:43 am
This case illustrates how non-use of a trade mark can attract loss of registration rights. [read post]
11 Feb 2020, 4:09 am
Yeley submitted a declaration explaining how the mark J. [read post]
14 Apr 2014, 3:10 am
Toro argued that its own mark PRECISION is suggestive, but that Hunter's mark is merely descriptive. [read post]
28 Mar 2018, 3:27 am
" However, the Board reversed refusals to register two design forms of the mark, shown below, finding that these two marks had acquired distinctiveness, but requiring a disclaimer of the word "SERIAL" in each mark. [read post]
5 Oct 2023, 4:11 am
The Board concluded that applicant’s KIST marks are not likely to cause confusion with Opposer’s SUNKIST marks. [read post]
3 May 2023, 1:06 am
Briefly, a mark will not be registered in the US if the mark as filed just won’t indicate origin (even if in another context it might). [read post]
29 Mar 2021, 3:48 am
With respect to the factor of similarity between the two marks, the Court considers the context in which the marks are used.In this civil action, Plaintriff LFI relies in part on Defendant's use of its "Lexington" mark on its social media and its website, in advertisements and on product, but none of these uses were considered by the TTAB. [read post]
16 Jul 2019, 2:37 am
Showing only the mark with no reference to, or association with, the services does not show service mark usage. [read post]
2 Dec 2014, 6:51 pm
That's true when what is sought to be registered is a word mark, not a design mark with a particular color. [read post]
9 May 2019, 2:06 am
The proposed mark therefore misdescribes the identified goods. [read post]
