Search for: "Mark 2 Mark, Inc."
Results 161 - 180
of 8,100
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Dec 2011, 7:51 am
Nautilus, Inc., --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2011 WL 6325854 (W.D. [read post]
30 Jan 2008, 4:46 am
Vanity Fair, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Sep 2006, 5:18 am
In its 42nd citable decision of 2006, the Board sustained a Section 2(d) opposition to registration of the mark DARJEELING NOUVEAU for tea ["DARJEELING" disclaimed], finding the mark likely to cause confusion with the registered certification marks DARJEELING and DARJEELING & Design (shown below). [read post]
14 Dec 2020, 3:46 am
Nike, Inc. v. [read post]
7 Sep 2021, 7:05 am
Tapestry, Inc. v. [read post]
1 Dec 2023, 4:12 am
Global Commodities, Inc. v. [read post]
28 Sep 2022, 3:34 am
In re Gaia Herbs, Inc., Serial Nos. 90052133, 90052135, 90052144, and 90052150 (September 26, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge George C. [read post]
28 Jun 2018, 11:51 pm
Procedural historythe mark applied for by France.com Inc. [read post]
24 Apr 2020, 7:54 am
Co., 514 U.S. 159 (1995) and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
28 Nov 2023, 4:15 am
See Nike, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Apr 2007, 7:02 pm
Despite obvious differences in the marks, the Board granted summary judgment to Google, Inc. in its Section 2(d) opposition to registration of the mark BLOGLE (Stylized) for "computer software for searching, compiling, indexing and organizing information. [read post]
17 Jun 2015, 6:08 am
Leisure Concepts, Inc. v. [read post]
17 Apr 2007, 8:50 pm
"Based on this undisputed evidence, the Board found the RATED R mark to be famous for purposes of Section 2(d). [read post]
14 Jan 2019, 10:22 am
Lamendola has 9 disclosure events listed on his broker report including 6 customer complaints, 2 employment separations and 1 other regulatory event. [read post]
20 Feb 2015, 4:11 pm
Thor Tech, Inc. [read post]
10 Jul 2014, 8:38 am
(2) Are Articles 2 and 3(1) of Directive [2008/95] to be interpreted as meaning that a sign representing the presentation of the establishment in which a service is provided is capable of being registered as a trade mark? [read post]
21 Dec 2009, 3:20 am
Bell's Brewery, Inc. uncorked a loser when it opposed registration of the mark BELL HILL for packaged wine. [read post]
8 Mar 2012, 2:16 am
" In any event, even sophisticated purchasers may be confused by very similar marks on identical goods.The lack of evidence of actual confusion did not raise a genuine issue of material fact because the test under Section 2(d) is likelihood of confusion, not actual confusion. [read post]
24 Jan 2013, 2:56 am
In re Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc., Serial No. 77455710 (January 11, 2013) [precedential].An applicant may overcome an ornamentality refusal in any of three ways: (1) by proving inherent distinctiveness; (2) by establishing acquired distinctiveness; or (3) by showing that the mark is registered for other goods or services, and thus that the applied-for mark serves as a secondary source indicator. [read post]
6 Apr 2016, 7:45 am
Greenwich Taxi, Inc. v. [read post]
