Search for: "IN RE SLOKEVAGE"
Results 1 - 4
of 4
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Apr 2008, 6:24 am
" It is appropriate in such a case for the PTO to issue an ornamental refusal if the proposed mark is decorative or ornamental on its face.The Board therefore found that the proposed marks constituted mere ornamentation and failed to function as trademarks.TTABlog comment: Curiously, there was no discussion, or even mention, of the CAFC's decision in In re Slokevage, 78 USPQ2d 1395 (Fed. [read post]
31 Mar 2006, 5:21 am
Not a Trademark/Mutilation: Distinguishing Dell, TTAB Finds Webpage Specimen Unacceptable for DVRTrade Dress/Product Configuration: CAFC Affirms TTAB's Slokevage Product Design Trade Dress RulingUse in Commerce/Specimen of Use: Distinguishing Dell, TTAB Finds Webpage Specimen Unacceptable for DVRPractice and Procedure:"GOSMILE PM" Applicant Seeks District Court Review of TTAB 2(d) AffirmanceIn Citable No. 18, TTAB Draws Distinction between Fraud and Nonuse TTAB Citable No. 8:… [read post]
12 Apr 2012, 10:11 am
In re Slokevage, 441 F.3d 957, 959 (Fed. [read post]
13 Feb 2023, 9:37 am
Where a trademark is located matters. [read post]
