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 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.
If you desire to register a servicemark asserting use that is preparatory for the rendering of your services, your application will fail in the U.S. Instead, the services must be actually rendered in connection with the mark for a registration to be granted. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Suuberg , at p.
Defendants' letter allegedly copied text from LStar Trademark infringement: LStar never specified what its trademarks or servicemarks were. Not every word on a label or ad is a mark. False designation of origin: Failed to state a passing off claim, but Dastar didn’t bar a reverse passing off claim. What about injury? “[H]ere
If you desire to register a servicemark asserting use that is preparatory for the rendering of your services, your application will fail in the U.S. Instead, the services must be actually rendered in connection with the mark for a registration to be granted. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). ” Id.
California claimed that its ring designmark is commercially strong, but its evidence did not relate solely to the ring mark. It included evidence regarding use of that mark with the bank name. Nor did California put its advertising expenses "in context," i.e., in comparison with the expenditures of other banks.
The parties previously partnered nonexclusively so that PureThink would sell and support the commercial version of Neo4j; upon termination, PureThink expressly agreed to “cease using any trademarks, servicemarks and other designations of Plaintiffs.” Summary judgment granted on state and federal false advertising claims.
“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. Its intent that the phrase function as a servicemark is irrelevant. In re Hulting , 107 USPQ2d 1175, 1180 (TTAB 2013).
On the other end are brick and mortar stores that sell trademark-infringing items directly to consumers, regardless of whether the stores design or manufacture those items. CafePress * Cafepress Suffers Potentially Significant Trademark Loss for Users’ Uploaded Designs * Life May Be “Rad,” But This Trademark Lawsuit Isn’t–Williams v.
In contrast, trademarks in the United States —in some instances referred to as servicemarks or trade names—are created by use by a person “in commerce”; technically, no government approval is required. Copyright Office, after what amounts to a much lighter review process. See also: RC Cola, Polar Cola, Jolt!—and and so on. )
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.
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.
A trade name often is designated by the term “doing business as,” “trading as,” or “operating as” to make this distinction from the legal name. This is created through personal contact with the client in connection with the use of services or products, contact with sales or client support, or through brand communication (marketing).
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.
in the field of wake, ski, surf, snowboard, motocross, mountain bike, BMX, and skate” portion of the Contested Services, Jones argued that Monster "produced no evidence in discovery that it has ever trained athletes under the [marks of the Counterclaimed Registrations],” and the Contested Services "have never been advertised or sold."
The Board upheld the USPTO's refusals to register the two proposed marks shown below, for "hotel services; provision of conference, exhibition, and meeting facilities," finding that the building designs are not inherently distinctive and lack secondary meaning. In re Palacio Del Rio, Inc. Serial Nos.
Applicant manufactures, advertises and sells, under the stylized HME mark, goods that opposer previously sold, to customers who previously were opposer’s customers in the United. The Marks: The Board found the involved marks to be similar in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.
The Board, however, had no doubt that HUMAN DATA MARKETPLACE is merely descriptive because it "immediately conveys knowledge of a quality, feature, function, or characteristic of Applicant’s online marketplace and platform featuring data assets."
This implies that the configuration and arrangement of shapes, designs, colors, materials that form the trade dress will not be protected if it serves a utilitarian purpose. The Lanham Act, also known as the Trademark Act of 1946 is the US Federal Statute that regulates trademarks, servicemarks, and unfair competition.
.” The “Claiming User Date” category pertains to trademarks that are already in use by the applicant in the market, while the “Proposed to be Used” category applies to trademarks or servicemarks that are for future use. Supporting documents should be attached to substantiate these claims.
The Nice Agreement, concluded at Nice in 1957, revised at Stockholm in 1967 and at Geneva in 1977, and amended in 1979, establishes a classification of goods and services for the purposes of registering trademarks and servicemarks (the Nice Classification).
The Giant agreement provided that the servicemark “JADE” would be held exclusively by the Jade Group, that at no time would more than one member of the Jade Group appear on a non-Jade Group recording, and that no additional members would be added to the Jade Group without Giant’s consent.
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