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
The applicant argued that the USPTO's evidence was too limited, but the Board pointed out that "the Examining Attorney need only establish a reasonable predicate that the phrase fails to function as a mark; the Examining Attorney is not required 'to prove to a moral certainty' that the phrase would not be perceived as a source-indicator.
No] Section 2(f) - Acquired Distinctiveness: Lotus-Shaped Acupressure Mat Product Design Lacks Acquired Distinctiveness and Fails to Function as a ServiceMark Precedential No. Welch 2022. Abandonment: Precedential No. Abandonment: Precedential No. Anti-Aging Preparations Related to Clothing?
The Board affirmed refusals to register the product design shown below as a trademark for acupressure mats and pillows, and as a servicemark for retail store services featuring those goods, finding that the product shape lacked acquired distinctiveness as a trademark and failed to function as a servicemark.
The USPTO refused to register Glascoe’s mark SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF GOD for use as a servicemark when “analyzing the process of creating a human being, the earth, the universe and its environment.” In re Glascoe (Fed. ” I know what you are thinking–deceptively misdescriptive.
91237315 (February 17, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christen M. become ordained” or “become a minister,” is strong evidence that Applicant’s consumers will perceive “get ordained” not as a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. Welch 2022. American Marriage Ministries v.
88304005 and 88584338 (February 24, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Michael B. The Trade Mark [sic] Act is not an act to register words but to register trademarks. Before there can be registrability, there must be a trademark (or a servicemark) and, unless words have been so used, they cannot qualify for registration."
In the spring and summer of 2022, following the international sanctions imposed upon Russia after its invasion of Ukraine, Russia introduced several landmark changes to its IP law, most notably to patent, trademark and copyright laws. Thus, in April 2022, deciding on a case brought by a U.S. Is anything here on the list? SURPRISE!”,
Today, it’s about the trade marks. February: In Nigeria, the Business Facilitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 2022 , was signed into law. The Federal High Court in Abuja cancelled the registration and unauthorised use of the Sanofi trademark by the three Nigerian companies.
The Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago (IPLAC) Creator of the Year Committee is seeking nominations for its 2022 Creator of the Year Award. Trademark Law: A powerful branding program that combines a strong trademark or servicemark and a memorable advertising and marketing campaign.
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.
Introduction A mark represents the institution or company to which it belongs and serves as a means of differentiating goods or services among individuals. Marks can be of various types i.e., word marks, servicemarks, logos, symbols, series marks, etc [1]. 2022, February 28). 1] Acharya, M.
The Board found that Applicant's specimen of use "does not reflect that consumers of Applicant's services will perceive [either mark] as trademarks indicating. television entertainment services." 87916944 and 879169481 (August 24, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Peter W. Welch 2022. Serial Nos.
The Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago (IPLAC) Creator of the Year Committee is seeking nominations for its 2022 Creator of the Year Award. Trademark Law: A powerful branding program that combines a strong trademark or servicemark and a memorable advertising and marketing campaign.
Thus, the changes described below are expected to enter into force in a few weeks, except (iii), which will enter into force in spring 2022. Trade marks The EUIPO Observatory launched an awareness campaign entitled “Risks and Damages Posed by IPR Infringement in Europe”. Kluwer Patent Blog reported on the changes.
My Market, LLC has been operating as a convenience store in Fort Wayne, Indiana , and holds a federal trademark for the servicemark “MY MARKET FISH CHICKEN SANDWICHES SHRIMP” (U.S. 6,935,101), which was granted on December 27, 2022. Trademark Registration No.
2, 2022, the Federal Circuit decided In re Vox Populi Registry Ltd. , The Federal Circuit found that substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that consumers will perceive.SUCKS only as a non-source identifying part of a domain name and not as a servicemark.
2, 2022, the Federal Circuit decided In re Vox Populi Registry Ltd. , The Federal Circuit found that substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that consumers will perceive.SUCKS only as a non-source identifying part of a domain name and not as a servicemark.
1:21-cv-10688-IT, 2022 WL 4626918 (D. 30, 2022) Plaintiff, d/b/a Logan Car Service, has offered limousine and transportation services primarily in the Greater Boston area since the 2000s and uses logancarservice.com to do so. Boston Carriage, Inc. Boston Suburban Coach, Inc., Boston Suburban is a competitor.
4 th , 2022 WL 39839, No. 5, 2022) The court finds that, contrary to the district court’s holding, at least some of the underlying lawsuit’s allegations claimed that Vitamin Energy made disparaging statements about 5-hour Energy, thus triggering the insurer’s duty to defend under its “advertising injury” policy. Vitamin Energy, LLC v.
Respondent TMRR created and promoted the mark but it did not use the mark in rendering mortgage services, nor was it permitted to do so by the agreement between the parties. 92076723 (August 15, 2022) [precedential] (Opinion by Judge Michael B. Welch 2022. CBC Mortgage Agency v. TMRR, LLC , Cancellation No.
The Board found that Registrant Locus Link USA never used the mark in connection with "evaporative air coolers," and rejected Locus Link's interpretation of the identification of goods. 2022-100137E and 2022-100138E (July 1, 2024) [precedential] (Opinion by Judge Jennifer L. In re Locus Link USA , Expungements Nos.
In re Pound Law, LLC , 2022 USPQ2d 1062 (TTAB 2022) [precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cynthia C. 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." In re Brunetti , 2022 USPQ3d 764, at *9.
Concluding that the phrase THIS IS FOR MY GIRLS appears on the specimens of record solely as a song title, the Board affirmed a refusal to register the proposed mark for "entertainment information; musical composition for others; production of musical sound recording." 87399929 (July 13, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Marc A.
The pro se applicant argued, without success, that the proposed mark is suggestive rather than merely descriptive because "HUMAN could refer to any number of ambiguous interpretations about the mark, especially if HUMAN is used as a noun." 88526515 (December 15, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Michael B. Welch 2022.
88308426, 88308434, 88308451, and 88310900 (August 22, 2022) [precedential] (Opinion by Judge Mark Lebow). Section 3 states that servicemarks are registrable "in the same manner and with the same effect as trademarks." Welch 2022. In re Erik Brunetti , Serial Nos. Read comments and post your comment here.
The Board affirmed a refusal to register the proposed mark WE’RE HERE TO HELP WITH YOUR LEGAL NEEDS! finding that the phrase fails to function as a servicemark for "legal services." 4th 1348, 2022 USPQ2d 115, at *3 (Fed. In re Richard M. In In re Vox Populi Registry Ltd. ,
Harwood International Incorporated , 2022 USPQ2d 862 (TTAB 2022) [precedential] (Opinion by Judge David K. TMEP Section 903.06 (2022). Several press releases were issued at that time, but they did not constitute servicemark use. And so it found that JNF had failed to prove prior servicemark use.
However, it does sell, manufacture, and print the same type of goods that are directly covered by Canvasfish’s registered servicemark… Canvasfish has a registered mark for an online store that sells prints, boat wraps, phone cases, drinkware and various other products bearing DeYoung’s artwork and registered mark.
If consumers don't or won't perceive a term as indicating source, then the term is not a trademark (or servicemark). In re Brunetti , 2022 USPQ2d 764. Failure-to-function is the original sin of trademark law.
91256127 (October 25, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Michael B. The Board found that "the evidence all points in one direction: Cowboy Jack bequeathed his music businesses, including Opposer (which owns the involved mark) to Alison and Niles. Welch 2022. Robert Clement , Opposition No. Text Copyright John L.
34: TTAB Affirms Nonuse Refusal - ServiceMark Use Requires Rendering of the Services, Not Just Preparation TTAB Affirms Refusal of "MADE FOR MORE" for Employee Recruitment: Not Rendered for the Benefit of Others Precedential No. Lack of Bona Fide Intent: Precedential No.
” Scrooge wasn’t the only one who had that idea: a business owner registered ALWAYS CHRISTMAS & Design as a servicemark in 1995 (Registration No. As Ebeneezer Scrooge put it after being visited by the three ghosts: “I will honour Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year.”
The TMEP lists ‘a series of tones or musical notes’ and ‘wording accompanied by music’ as two examples of potentially registrable forms of sound marks. 3618321), and “[t]he NBC chimes sequence [, which] actually became the first ‘purely audible’ servicemark to register with the USPTO in 1950.”
trademarks, servicemarks, commercial names, and designations; industrial designs; and any other rights stemming from intellectual endeavors in industrial, scientific, literary, or artistic spheres. References [1] Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization art.2. 3] PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE MANUAL. [4]
You can, so long as you are offering goods and/or services under that trademark. For example, if you complete your online store offering downloadable software on January 1, 2022, you may affix the “TM” ( ) symbol the same day. The “SM” (℠) symbol stands for servicemark.
In In re GO & Associates, LLC , 2022-1961 (Fed. 13, 2023) , the Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB’s refusal to register the mark EVERYBODY VS RACISM because it failed to function as a trademark. Isaacs , 2022-1434 (Fed. In Trek Bicycle Corp. The Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) § 1202.04
RACISM for tote bags and various clothing items, and for the services of "promoting public interest and awareness of the need for racial reconciliation and encouraging people to know their neighbor and then affect change in their own sphere of influence," finding that the phrase fails to function as a source indicator. 2022-1961 (Fed.
2022-1961 (Fed. The CAFC observed that "[i]f the nature of a proposed mark would not be perceived by consumers as identifying the source of a good or service, it is not registrable," citing TMEP § 1202.04(b) 2022), cert. At the request of the USPTO under Fed. 14, 2023, re-designated as precedential, January 22, 2024).
The Board ruled that the proposed mark "would be perceived by consumers as a widely used social and political message and therefore merely informational in nature, as opposed to a source indicator of Applicant's goods and services." 88944728 (April 20, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cheryl S. Welch 2022.
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