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
Effective January 18, 2025, the USPTO will increase government fees for certain trademark and servicemark related filings and requests. Fee changes relating to the Madrid Protocol designations at the USPTO and for renewals of WIPO will take effect on February 18, 2025. By: Haug Partners LLP
In March 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that a servicemark owner with all of its physical assets located along the Pacific coast could maintain a suit for servicemark infringement against a company using a similar mark, on the same services, whose physical assets were all located along the Atlantic coast.
88681779 (March 14, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Angela Lykos). Trademark Rule 2.56(b)(2) b)(2) states: "A servicemark specimen must show the mark as used in [1] the sale of the services, including use in the performance or rendering of the services, or [2] in the advertising of the services.
Trademark bullies breathed a sigh of relief when, in this opposition to registration of the mark shown below for delivery of medical cannabis via car service, the Board rejected Applicant Greenersides affirmative defense of unclean hands. The Trademark Act does not refer to trademark bullying explicitly or even implicitly.
11: TTAB Upholds 2(a) False Connection Refusal of LEATHERNECKS for Motorcycle Club Membership Section 2(c) - Consent of Living Individual Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of the Trademark Act’s “Names Clause” in Affirming Refusal to Register TRUMP TOO SMALL Section 2(d) - Likelihood of Confusion: TTABlog Test: Is HOLLYWOOD COFFEE CO.
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