This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Last year, the Board affirmed a refusal to register the proposed mark A S LIVE FOREVER , in the stylized form shown below, for various goods in 14 classes, finding that the phrase fails to function as a trademark. A consumer is likely to buy the goods or services that prominently display the phrase because of the message conveyed.
96 USPQ2d 1227, 1229 (TTAB 2010); see also In re Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , become ordained” or “become a minister,” is strong evidence that Applicant’s consumers will perceive “get ordained” not as a servicemark but rather for the commonly understood meaning of the words. In re Eagle Crest Inc. ,
Sections 1, 2, 3, and 45 of the Lanham Act provide the statutory basis for a refusal to register subject matter that does not function as a trademark or servicemark. A threshold question in evaluating the registrability of a trademark or servicemark is whether the proposed mark meets the source indication requirement.
(I am unaware of any reported comparison, but I did find the latter compared to a toilet flushing and have seen the former’s trademark suffer indignities at times too ). The object then is to hear out all sides, and offer some thoughts on the recent clamor around acoustic marks and the questions that they present.
‘The Paris Convention’, adopted in March 1883 and revised in the years 1900, 1911, 1925, 1934, 1958, 1967, and 1979, comprehensively addresses “patents, utility models, industrial designs, trademarks, servicemarks, trade names, and geographical indications”. [1] It officially came into force on October 12, 2014.
Its evidence regarding its first rendering of services under the mark was "characterized by contradictions, inconsistencies, and indefiniteness." Its claim of use analogous to trademark use failed because its prior publicity "was not sufficiently clear, widespread and repetitive." 96 USPQ2d 1031, 1036 (TTAB 2010).
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content