Search for: "Mark C. Good"
Results 1181 - 1200
of 5,962
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Mar 2024, 8:50 am
This has created a market where the distinction between inspiration (homage=good) and copying (theft=bad) is sometimes difficult to apply. [read post]
15 Feb 2018, 3:26 am
The proposed mark is thus incapable of distinguishing Applicant’s goods, making it ineligible for registration on the Supplemental Register. [read post]
9 Sep 2015, 10:03 am
Trade marks and recall of altered goods: can you help? [read post]
8 Nov 2021, 5:17 am
Opposer Rebecca Curtin, a professor at Suffolk University Law School in Boston, alleges that the proposed mark fails to function as a trademark under Sections 1, 2, and 45 of the Trademark Act on the grounds that it is purely informational and highly descriptive, if not generic, for the goods. [read post]
10 Oct 2013, 3:42 am
[C[onsumers are familiar with bicycle enclosures that have different shapes. [read post]
23 Nov 2008, 9:01 am
Lindt, Switzerland's oldest chocolate maker, is denying an Austrian competitor's claims that it acquired its EU-wide protection in bad faith at a hearing this week in Case C-529/07.Lindt's trade mark is being used to prevent the Austrian company Franz Hauswirth GmbH from making products that are allegedly confusingly similar to its 56-year-old trade mark rabbit, which is wrapped in gold foil with a bell and wears a red ribbon around its neck. [read post]
25 Jan 2022, 1:00 am
It is certainly true that when an opposition is based on ‘series’ (or ‘family’) of marks, a likelihood of confusion may be created by the possibility of association between the applied mark and the earlier marks forming part of the series, for example when “consumer may be mistaken as to the provenance or origin of goods or services covered by the trade mark applied for and consider, erroneously, that the latter trade… [read post]
5 Feb 2019, 3:57 am
Applicant conceded that the term is merely descriptive by amending its initial application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register, but insisted that the mark is not generic after Examining Attorney Jason Paul Blair refused registration under Section 23(c) and Section 45. [read post]
23 Apr 2018, 4:16 am
The action was based on Sections 3 (1)(b), (1)(c), (1)(d) and (2) of the UK Trade Marks Act 1994, with the applicant alleging that the mark was devoid of distinctive character, descriptive of the goods, customary in the trade, and that it fell foul of all of the shape objections. [read post]
25 Jan 2013, 7:12 am
Thanks, Antonis -- and good on you, BIA. [read post]
27 Nov 2009, 10:37 pm
" Therefore, according to the Yankees, the opposed mark BASEBALLS EVIL EMPIRE is likely to cause confusion as to the source of Applicant's good. [read post]
27 Nov 2023, 7:30 am
The decisive factor in determining whether the sign has distinctive character is the fact that the sign is not distinguishable from the appearance of the product (C-26/17). [read post]
23 Jul 2019, 11:23 am
GAME has a trademark registration for an image of the duck for various goods, and a copyright registration for the inflatable itself. [read post]
15 Dec 2020, 4:39 am
" In re Team Jesus LLC, Serial No. 88105154 (December 10, 2020) [precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cynthia C. [read post]
9 Jul 2018, 6:18 am
According to the CJEU, it is apparent from the wording of Article 8(5) EUTMR that this requires fulfilment of three cumulative conditions:The marks at issue must be identical or similar;The earlier mark cited in opposition must have a reputation; andThere must be a risk that the use without due cause of the sign applied for would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark.The mark’s earlier reputation… [read post]
22 Sep 2015, 1:35 am
It's Case C-427/15: New Wave CZ. [read post]
30 Apr 2014, 5:34 am
citing TMEP § 1213.05(c) (Oct. 2013). [read post]
7 Dec 2021, 5:00 am
Frito Lay had applied to revoke EUTM no. 009492158 for ‘MONSTER’ in cl. 5, 29, 30 and 33 held by Monster Energy under Article 51(1)(a) EUTM Regulation (cancelation decision No 14 861 C), claiming that the trade mark had not been put to genuine use for any of those goods within five years. [read post]
16 Feb 2009, 3:01 am
In the event that the trade marks have a reputation, may the proprietor oppose such use under Article 5(2) of the directive and Article 9(1)(c) of the regulation? [read post]
2 Aug 2013, 4:33 am
The claimant, relying on its earlier CTM, felt that the defendant's continued use of the F-word was a trade mark infringement, alleged both use of an identical mark for identical goods and, in the event that the goods or marks were not identical, that there was a likelihood of confusion among relevant consumers. [read post]
