Search for: "In Re Mavety Media Group Ltd"
Results 1 - 4
of 4
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Apr 2012, 10:04 am
” In re Mavety Media Group Ltd., 33 F.3d 1367, 31 USPQ2d 1923 (Fed. [read post]
18 Sep 2007, 7:33 pm
" See In re Mavety Media Group Ltd., 33 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. [read post]
18 Feb 2015, 8:55 am
Mavety Media Group Ltd., 52 USPQ2d 1600 (TTAB 1999), the rule says that under Section 2(a), “whether a mark is found to be disparaging depends on the context and the persons or groups of persons the mark is directed toward. [read post]
4 Oct 2007, 5:06 am
" (citing In re Mavety Media Group, Ltd., 33 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed Cir. 1994)).Since the mark is to be applied to condoms, one can only stare in bewilderment at the Examining Attorney's determination that the condom-purchasing public would find reference to orgasms or "cum" to be immoral or scandalous.As additional item worthy of praise, the TTAB should be congratulated for noting that although the term "cum" may be a sexual… [read post]
