2002 Licensing Ownership 
LexBlog IP
MARCH 28, 2022
Trade mark ownership is an important consideration for any business. Unfortunately however, while seemingly obvious, the concept of ownership is sometimes overlooked and can be more complex than originally imagined. At this point, it may be too late! Let’s start with the legislation – a very good place to start.
Patently-O
MAY 2, 2022
The proposal expressly stated that “ownership and title to the Equipment” would be conveyed. 2002) (offer to make a “remote database object. Software License : One question I have in this case involves the onboard software. ” An offer to license is distinct from an offer to sell. .”
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
The TTABlog
APRIL 6, 2022
Illyrian Import claimed to be the exclusive authorized distributor and brand agent of a company ("GKS") that continuously sold GJERGJ KASTRIOTI SKËNDERBEU and SKËNDERBEU brandy in the United States since 2002. Fraud: Illyrian alleged that ADOL committed fraud by falsely claiming ownership of the subject marks. See also Chem.
LexBlog IP
JANUARY 17, 2024
State-Licensed Insurance Producers This exemption includes any entity that (a) is a state-authorized insurance producer subject to supervision by the insurance commissioner or a similar official or agency and (b) has an operating presence at a physical office within the U.S. or abroad, including any ownership interests.
LexBlog IP
AUGUST 29, 2023
State-Licensed Insurance Producers This exemption includes any entity that (a) is a state-authorized insurance producer subject to supervision by the insurance commissioner or a similar official or agency and (b) has an operating presence at a physical office within the U.S. or abroad, including any ownership interests.
LexBlog IP
JUNE 9, 2023
In addition to VIP’s statements regarding ownership of the marks, VIP’s use of the mark on product hang tags directly opposite their registered SILLY SQUEAKERS logo also indicates use as a source identifier. 3d 806, (1999); Tommy Hilfiger Licensing, Inc. 410 (SDNY 2002); United We Stand Am., 2d 994, 999 (CA2 1989).
The TTABlog
AUGUST 2, 2021
The Board found that Shen knew he was not the owner of the mark, that his false statement of ownership was material to the registration, and that he intended to deceive the USPTO. The false statement of ownership was a material misrepresentation because an application filed by someone who is not the owner is void. Cancellation No.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
52 
Let's personalize your content