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
Yesterday, it was all about key developments in the copyright field in the Africa IP Highlights 2023 – the result of collaboration between myself and several IP practitioners and researchers across Africa: Clarisse Mideva ; Rita Chindah ; and Jessie Mgonga. Today, it’s about the trade marks. Tinderet is an area in Kenya.
In a less than enlightening decision, the Board affirmed a refusal to register the proposed mark shown below as a servicemark for "casinos" and "hotel, restaurant and bar services," finding that the mark "is not an inherently distinctive source identifier and therefore, fails to function as a servicemark for Applicants services."
In a twin set of precedential opinions, the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board laid the foundation for determining whether building designs can be trademark protected as servicemarks. 88412764; 88437801 (TTAB May 25, 2023) (Shaw, Goodman, Hudis, ATJs); In re Seminole Tribe of Florida, Ser. In re Palacio Del Rio, Inc.,
Section 4 of the Trademark Act provides for registration of a collective membership mark, defined as a trademark or servicemark adopted by a collective and used by members to indicate membership in the collective. 90019480 (February 17, 2023) [precedential] (Opinion by Judge Peter W. Welch 2023.
There are plenty of fish in the sea when it comes to trademarks: from word marks to servicemarks; from symbols to surnames; from product packaging to product design. When the time is right, and you feel like you have found “the one,” it is important to lock it down.
90641690 (November 21, 2023) [precedentia] (Opinion by Judge Jonathan Hudis). 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. 1578, 2023 USPQ2d 677, at *5 (2023) (cleaned up). Welch 2023.
Introduction The year 2023 was a high for Indian cinema- with the love of the country for the big screen soaring high with box office numbers. 27, 2023) [link] [2] Krishika Lulla v. 20, 2023) [link] [6] Supra note [7] Akashaditya Harishchandra Lama v. 20, 2023) [link] [10] Arbaaz Khan Production (P) Ltd.
Applicant argued that the Office's evidence - some 14 third-party uses of the phrase and its variants - was insufficient to show how the mark is perceived by the general public. 90976324 (May 5, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Jonathan Hudis). As we note above, some third-party uses are servicemark uses.
Andrusiek , 2023 USPQ2d XXX (Fed. 2023) [not precedential]. The appellate court noted that a party may try to show that it acquired proprietary rights in a mark as a result of “prior use analogous to trademark or servicemark use.” The court therefore affirmed the "cancellation of Appellant's mark."
The Board affirmed a failure-to-function refusal to register WHEN THERE ARE NINE , in standard character form, as a servicemark for "providing educational scholarships." 90525583 (August 16, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Wendy Boldt Cohen). may influence how the [mark] is perceived.’” Welch 2023.
2023/2024) In a non-precedential 2023 decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) refusing to register “ Everybody vs Racism ” as a trademark for apparel, tote bags, and services promoting racial justice advocacy. In re GO & Associates , 22-1961 (Fed.
91244990 (December 14, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Mark A. Without evidence, Game Plan's claim of common law rights was baseless and so the Board considered only its registered servicemark rights. Welch 2023. The sole issue for the Board was priority, and UNIP came in first. Game Plan, Inc.
The distinction between trade name use and either trademark or servicemark use is often a difficult one to make and often is nebulous in character.” 2023) and cases cited therein. See , e.g. , In re Letica Corp. , 226 USPQ 276, 277 (TTAB 1985). A designation may function as both a trade name and a trademark. In re Univar Corp.,20
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 1354, 2023 USPQ2d 1337 (Fed. In re Richard M. Russell , Serial No. LLC , 90 F.4th
In a whopping 82-page opinion, the Board affirmed the USPTO's refusal to register PARKING.COM , on either the Principal Register or the Supplemental Register, as a servicemark for “website providing information regarding parking availability." 87906630 (August 11, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Elizabeth A.
And the parties’ market interface weighed slightly in favor of opposer "to the extent the parties acknowledged a need for Applicant to choose a non-confusingly similar mark." 2023 USPQ2d 1136 (TTAB 2023) [precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cindy B Greenbaum). Welch 2023. KME Germany GmbH v. Zhejiang Hailiang Co.,
This Kat is pleased to review the “ Overlapping Intellectual Property rights ”, edited by Neil Wilkof [full disclosure: a member of the IPKat team], Shamnad Basheer, and Irene Calboli (OUP, 2023, 864 pp.).
” Scrooge wasn’t the only one who had that idea: a business owner registered ALWAYS CHRISTMAS & Design as a servicemark in 1995 (Registration No. We wonder if MR. HANUKKAH or HANNAH have met the newcomer, HANUKKAH VERONICA THE MITZVAH FAIRY, registered in August 2023 (Registration No. That was a close one!
88412764 and 88437801 (May 25, 2023) [precedential] (Opinion by Judge Jonathan Hudis). Inherent Distinctiveness: The Supreme Court's decision in Two Pesos , involving the decor of a Mexican restaurant, established that "adornments in a building structure" may be protectable as a servicemark." Welch 2023. Serial Nos.
In a precedential decision the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) affirmed a refusal to register a character featured in a video game on the grounds that the proposed design mark failed to function as a trademark. 97115036 (August 28, 2023). In re Joseph A. Stallard , Serial No. In re Hechinger Inv.
Marshall, 2023 WL 6963661, No. 20, 2023) In 1991, Reed and defendants Marshall and Harris formed the recording group Jade, and in 1992 they signed an exclusive recording agreement with a now-defunct label, Giant. H-21-3942 (S.D. as ‘work for hire.’”
It also produced documents during discovery supposedly disclosing an event held prior to April 2021 in the United States but shown to be referencing a 2023 event in Shanghai China. The Board concluded that Blizzards activities under the marks constitute use of the marks that satisfies the requirement of the Trademark Act.
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. The threshold determination is whether the public perceives the mark as a source identifier rather than an informational message or sentiment. .” 140 (2023).
14, 2023) [not precedential]. 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) 2579 (2023)). Welch 2023. In re GO & Associates, LLC , Appeal No. 2022-1961 (Fed.
14, 2023, re-designated as precedential, January 22, 2024). 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) 2579 (2023)). Welch 2023. At the request of the USPTO under Fed.
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