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
Because several of the getGo® Marks have been in use continuously since at least 2003, and Plaintiffs apparently complied with all further requirements, they are incontestable under 15 U.S.C. Further, Giant Eagle claims it has spent millions of dollars to advertise and promote its services using the getGo® Marks.
Each party acknowledged in its brief that the word PERMIT or PERMITS, combined with the top-level domain.COM, "constitutes, at the very least, a descriptive and non-inherently distinctive term in connection with their services." Furthermore, petitioner's sales and advertising figures were not placed in industry context.
The Board observed that, as made clear by the Trademark Act, the USPTO "is statutorily constrained to register matter on the Principal Register if and only if it functions as a mark." See , e.g. , In re Texas With Love, LLC , 2020 USPQ2d 11290, at *2 (TTAB 2020). In re Brunetti , 2022 USPQ3d 764, at *9.
The first is a recent decision of the Australian Federal Court in Manly Warringah Cabs (Trading) Co-operative Limited v Sydney Taxis Pty Ltd, in the matter of Sydney Taxis Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] FCA 1336. In August 2020, a provisional liquidator was appointed to Sydney Taxis on the application of Manly Cabs.
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