Search for: "Mark C. Good"
Results 1121 - 1140
of 5,962
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Jul 2019, 2:37 am
In re Outdoorlink, Inc., Serial Nos. 85935503 and 85935508 (July 8, 2019) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cynthia C. [read post]
31 Oct 2017, 11:34 am
The BoA observed that for a EUTM application to be refused, it is sufficient that grounds under Art. 8(1)(b) exist only in part of the EU in light of the users likely to use both the goods covered by the earlier mark and the mark applied for. [read post]
14 Oct 2018, 9:44 am
Apple further argued that the replacement of “H” and “N” with “C” in Swatch’s application is insignificant and not easily perceivable. [read post]
16 Feb 2011, 2:40 am
Suppose that a consumer orders goods from a third party’s website and, at the time of ordering, is not confused as the trade origin of the goods; but when the goods arrive some days later, the goods are labelled in a manner which wrongly leads the consumer to believe that the goods emanate from the trade mark proprietor. [read post]
30 Nov 2022, 8:05 am
For instance, the so-called Sieckmann criteria for representation of a mark (case C-273/00) were codified as part of the latest EU trade mark reform. [read post]
13 Oct 2016, 3:40 am
According to the CJEU's judgment in cases C-217/13 and C-218/13, the opposite is true - the burden of proof for acquired distinctiveness lies with the trade mark owner (there at para. 68). [read post]
12 Nov 2008, 7:00 am
"Applicant admitted that its good do indeed come from the place named in the mark. [read post]
5 Feb 2015, 5:17 am
Maybe the worst call of this year’s Big Game was the running of counterfeit goods before they were intercepted!? [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 6:39 pm
TMEP § 1213.05(c). [read post]
4 Mar 2016, 2:44 am
By contrast, Not as good as one may think. [read post]
22 Jan 2013, 4:10 am
Lacy admitted that he did not use the mark in connection with 109 of the identified goods, and had no intention to do so. [read post]
16 Feb 2007, 7:40 am
To establish the scope of protection of a trade mark consisting of a sign that has no distinctive character ab initio or an indication that meets the definition in Article 3(1)(c) of Council Directive 89/104 on the approximation of the trade mark law of member states, but where that sign/indication has acquired distinctiveness through use and has been registered, should consideration be given to the general interest that the availability of certain signs be not… [read post]
8 Jun 2011, 2:13 am
With the goods overlapping and the mark famous, a lesser degree of similarity between the marks is necessary to support a finding of likely confusion.As to the marks, the Board denied Nintendo's claim to a family of "BOY" marks due to insufficient evidence that it has promoted "a group of marks for which the common characteristic is the term 'BOY.'"Noting the definitions of the word "flash" in the… [read post]
19 Jun 2007, 10:31 am
The marks were barred from registration - but under s.3(1)(b) NOT s.3(1)(c) since consumers would not seen them as distinguishing origin.This type of case makes the IPKat rather uncomfortable. [read post]
5 Mar 2021, 4:40 am
Citing the CJEU’s Darjeeling judgments (Cases C‑673/15 et al., para. 63), the Guidelines now identify that ‘for collective marks, the essential function is to distinguish the goods and services of the members of the association that is the proprietor of the mark from those of other undertakings’ (§4 of Chapter 14). [read post]
14 Mar 2011, 2:45 am
The Board observed that "the one point of similarity, at a minimum, is highly suggestive of the goods such that the marks are not confusingly similar. [read post]
CJEU considers exclusive distribution agreement between infringers sufficient for joint jurisdiction
19 Sep 2023, 5:55 am
If both sell the same goods under the same trade mark, it seems difficult to argue that the facts are different just because they are not connected by an exclusive distribution agreement. [read post]
20 Aug 2007, 5:34 am
Rule 3.851(e)(2)(C). [read post]
22 Sep 2009, 3:59 am
Such a use cannot therefore be considered as being a use made in relation to goods or services identical or similar to those covered by the trade marks [even if it affects the mark's essential function or damages its goodwill? [read post]
15 Oct 2009, 12:27 pm
It wasn't clear to the Hoge Raad so that court asked the Court of Justice of the European Communities to rule on the following questions: ‘(1) ... where goods bearing a trade mark proprietor's mark have first been placed on the market within the EEA, but not by him or with his express consent, must the same criteria be applied in determining whether this has occurred with the (implied) consent of the trade… [read post]
