Search for: "Marks v. Goodding"
Results 101 - 120
of 12,085
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Dec 2018, 11:00 am
In the case of Monster Energy Company v Glamco Co, Ltd [2018] SGHC 238, the High Court was faced with the primary question of whether Glamco’s trade mark “SWEET MONSTER” in Class 30 was registrable in Singapore even though Monster Energy had earlier trade mark registrations for the word “MONSTER” (and variations thereof) in several classes in Singapore (section 8(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act). [read post]
30 Jan 2020, 6:51 am
The IPKat has now had some time to put its razor-sharp fangs into the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)'s decision in C-371/18 Sky v. [read post]
3 Apr 2019, 9:55 am
Section 32(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 requires (at least for now) that a trade mark applicant must state its good faith intention to use the mark applied for. [read post]
22 Jun 2011, 9:47 am
The Supreme Court of Canada recently released its decision in the case of Masterpiece v Alvida which clarified some trade-mark issues, particularly on the issue of confusion. [read post]
7 Apr 2016, 3:38 am
Noble House Home Furnishings, LLC v. [read post]
11 Dec 2009, 1:01 am
The relevant context, where the mark is a word mark, includes a consideration of the way in which the word has been displayed in relation to the goods and advertisements of which complaint is made: Mars GB Ltd v Cadbury Ltd [1987] RPC 387 at 402, per Whitford J. [read post]
10 Aug 2022, 2:26 pm
On balance of the above factors, the TTAB held that the marks were confusingly similar and denied registration of El Ranchero’s EL RANCHERO marks. [1] Cacique, LLC v. [read post]
10 Aug 2022, 2:26 pm
On balance of the above factors, the TTAB held that the marks were confusingly similar and denied registration of El Ranchero’s EL RANCHERO marks. [1] Cacique, LLC v. [read post]
20 Feb 2014, 6:54 am
Is it bad faith to apply for a trade mark you know your business associate is already using in the EU, albeit that he is only exporting goods under that mark? [read post]
16 Feb 2010, 3:12 am
When an applicant files a use-based application but has not used the mark for any of the identified goods or services, the application is void ab initio. [read post]
28 Apr 2011, 2:43 am
" The differences in the marks coupled with the care with which the goods are purchased outweighed the fact that the goods overlap. [read post]
14 Jan 2018, 11:32 pm
In particular, a scent ‘may be distinctive as a trade mark if it is not an inherent or natural characteristic of the goods/services but is added by the applicant to identify their goods and is recognised by the public as indicating trade origin. [read post]
28 Feb 2011, 11:49 am
The court held that this means that trade mark would be considered to be in relation to goods of like kind to goods following such words. [read post]
11 May 2018, 1:24 am
Evid. 801(c) and 803; Safer, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Dec 2016, 4:04 am
In essence it is a balance between (a) allowing a trade mark owner to maintain broad protection to a large category of goods when its use is confined to a particular sub-set of goods; and (b) removing protection for sub-sets of goods which the average consumer would consider to be substantially the same as the goods for which the mark has actually been used.After a thorough review, the specification was not amended. [read post]
22 Apr 2011, 2:41 am
Dreamwell, Ltd. v. [read post]
5 Aug 2009, 3:27 am
Last Friday, the High Court granted special leave to appeal in 2 trade mark matters: Health World Ltd v Shin-Sun Australia Pty Ltd E & J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Limited Given only about 80 cases a year score this level of achievement, there are obviously big issues afoot. [read post]
15 Mar 2017, 6:18 am
Retail Royalty Company v. [read post]
23 Aug 2006, 2:33 pm
In Duramax Marine, LLC v. [read post]
20 Aug 2007, 4:28 am
" Virgin Enterprises Ltd. v. [read post]
