Search for: "IN RE CHIPPENDALES USA"
Results 1 - 20
of 23
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Oct 2009, 8:07 am
Hot (if unlike LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION ® you go for that sort of thing) off the presses — here’s the appellate brief in the Chippendale’s appeal of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s affirmation of In re Chippendales USA, LLC, in which the PTO refused to register the “apparel configuration” shown at right for “adult”… [read post]
3 Oct 2010, 6:33 am
In re Chippendales USA, Inc. [read post]
12 Jul 2010, 3:37 am
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral argument [mp3 here] in the appeal from the TTAB's decision in In re Chippendales USA, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1535 (TTAB 2009) [precedential]. [read post]
8 Oct 2010, 9:03 am
(In re Chippendales USA Inc., Fed. [read post]
7 Oct 2010, 3:00 am
If there is any trademark case this year that has the media clamoring to create cute headlines, it may just be this one – In re Chippendales USA, Inc., decided by the Federal Circuit just six days ago. [read post]
18 Aug 2022, 5:18 pm
: December 4, 2008 – 10 AM: In re Chippendales USA, LLC, Serial No. 78666598 [Refusal to register... [read post]
26 Mar 2009, 3:00 am
In re Chippendales USA, Inc., Serial No. 78666598 (March 25, 2009) [precedential].Observing that application of the packaging/product design dichotomy [the former may be inherently distinctive, the latter cannot be] is not feasible when considering a service mark, the Board stated that it "must simply assess whether it is reasonable to assume that the consumer is predisposed to view the trade dress as a source indicator. [read post]
2 Dec 2008, 1:56 am
At his Likelihood of Confusion blog, Ron Coleman comments (here) on the pending TTAB appeal in In re Chippendales USA, LLC, Serial No. 78666598 [Appeal from the PTO's refusal to register the apparel configuration shown below for "adult entertainment services, namely exotic dancing for women in the nature of live performances" on the ground that the design is not inherently distinctive].The PTO has conceded that the Chippendale "outfit" is… [read post]
1 Dec 2008, 8:25 pm
: December 4, 2008 - 10 AM: In re Chippendales USA, LLC, Serial No. 78666598 [Refusal to register the apparel configuration shown below for "adult entertainment services, namely exotic dancing for women in the nature of live performances" on the ground that the design is not inherently distinctive]. [read post]
5 Oct 2010, 3:14 am
" In re Chippendales USA, Inc., Appeal No. 2009-1370 (Fed. [read post]
13 May 2009, 5:00 am
" Link: The TTABlog ®Link: In re Chippendales USA, Inc., No. 78666598 (Mar. 25, 2009). [read post]
22 Jan 2015, 4:14 pm
: December 4, 2008 – 10 AM: In re Chippendales USA, LLC, Serial No. 78666598 [Refusal to register the apparel configuration shown below for “adult entertainment services, namely exotic dancing for women in the nature of live performances” on the ground that the design is not inherently distinctive]. [read post]
12 Dec 2017, 1:18 pm
: December 4, 2008 – 10 AM: In re Chippendales USA, LLC, Serial No. 78666598 [Refusal to register the apparel configuration shown below for “adult entertainment services, namely exotic dancing for women in the nature of live performances” on the ground that the design is not inherently distinctive]. [read post]
11 Aug 2015, 3:23 am
In re Crane USA, Inc., Serial No. 86172232 (August 7, 2015) [not precedential].As we know, product configuration trade dress is registrable only upon proof of acquired distinctiveness. [read post]
26 Jun 2023, 2:42 pm
Samara Bros., In re Chippendales USA, Inc., and In re Frankish Enters. [read post]
26 Jun 2023, 2:42 pm
Samara Bros., In re Chippendales USA, Inc., and In re Frankish Enters. [read post]
12 Nov 2020, 3:24 am
” In re Chippendales USA, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1535, 1539-40 (TTAB 2009), aff’d, 96 USPQ2d 1681 The Board applied the ever-popular test of Seabrook Foods, Inc. v. [read post]
1 Dec 2008, 12:00 pm
The Foundation for a Christian Civilization, Inc., Opposition No. 91157073 [Opposition to registration of the apparel configuration depicted below as a mark for "clothing, namely ceremonial habit worn by distinguished religious representatives in certain ceremonies" and for "promoting public awareness of the need for healthy and religious families in the United States," on the grounds of lack of ownership, failure to function as a trademark, and likelihood of confusion].December… [read post]
10 Oct 2010, 11:10 pm
(IPKat) US Trade Marks – Decisions CAFC affirms TTAB: Chippendales’ ‘Cuffs & Collar’ mark not inherently distinctive: In re Chippendales USA, Inc (TTABlog) (Likelihood of Confusion) (Patently-O) 2nd Circuit: An invalid assignment isn’t incontestable: Federal Treasury Enter. [read post]
14 Nov 2016, 2:08 pm
In re Chippendales USA, Inc., 622 F.3d 1346, 1350 (Fed. [read post]
