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
Now in its second edition, the book offers a perspective on how one can address the overlap between intellectual property (IP) rights, either to reconcile them in whole or in part, or to pre-empt one over the other. Ochoa authors Chapter 9, which is devoted to the overlaps between copyright and the rights of publicity or personality rights.
As readers of Velocity of Content know, the US has had a copyright statute on the books since 1790, following closely on the heels of the (then) freshly minted copyright and patent clause in the Constitution. Copyright Office, after what amounts to a much lighter review process. Unlike copyrights and patents, U.S.
The print-on-demand service at issue is Pixels, who has appeared on this blog before. The plaintiff paints fish, has a trademark in his name, “DeYoung,” and has registered copyrights. RageOn * CreateSpace Isn’t Liable for Publishing Allegedly Infringing Uploaded Book–King v. Trademark Infringement.
In a non-precedential ruling, the CAFC affirmed the TTAB's decision [ TTABlogged here ], granting a petition for cancellation of a registration for the mark CAPTAIN CANNABIS for comic books, on the ground of likelihood of confusion with Petitioner Laverne J. Andrusiek's identical common law mark, also for comic books.
TTABlog Test: Is HI-FI Confusable With HIGH FIDELITY for Overlapping Marketing Services ? Yes] TTAB Orders Cancellation of CAPTAIN CANNABIS Registration for Comic Books: Petitioner Proved Priority By Use Analogous to Trademark Use TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Recent Section 2(d) Appeals Turn Out? Abandonment: Precedential No.
As we note above, some third-party uses are servicemark uses. Others are titles of books, or emblazoned in an ornamental manner on t-shirts or artwork. TTABlogger comment: NB: The fact that the phrase appears on the sewn-in label does not by itself make it a mark. Text Copyright John L. One Wholesaler, Inc.
The USPTO refused to register the proposed mark UNFORGETTABLE TRIPS for "travel agency services, namely, making reservations and bookings for transportation" [TRIPS] disclaimed], finding confusion likely with the registered mark shown below, for the identical services [HONEYMOONS disclaimed]. Text Copyright John L.
Under the rule of Otto Roth , a plaintiff must prove it has proprietary rights in a mark in order to succeed on a likelihood of confusion claim when challenging a registration on the Principal Register. Text Copyright John L. Furthermore, petitioner's sales and advertising figures were not placed in industry context. Welch 2024.
The question, then, was "whether, as a matter of law, online retail store or mail order activities featuring only a party’s own goods are 'services' as contemplated in the Trademark Act." The Trademark Act defines "servicemark" but does not define "services." Text Copyright John L. Iqbal , 566 U.S. Welch 2024.
The group owns the servicemark. They would not look to Opposer, whose participation was terminated in 2018, over five years ago, who has no further role in managing or booking the band, and who has not attempted to field another band under the mark SPLIT DECISION. Text Copyright John L. Welch 2024.
This marks a significant shift in the prevailing paradigm. AI and intellectual property rights (IPR) aren’t just something for the patent and copyright geeks to nerd out on although it is that, it is something that going to have a lot of commercial and social impacts as AI challenges a lot of the ways we function in IPR.
Examining Attorney Jaclyn Kidwell Walker maintained: "It is clear based on all the attached evidence that applicant ONLY provides yacht payment services and does not engage in the chartering services themselves." Text Copyright John L. citations omitted]. Read comments and post your comment here. TTABlogger comment: WYHA?
Ava asserted that the registered marks BLIZZARD and BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT had never been used or had been abandoned because the offering of ones own goods does not constitute a service done primarily for the benefit of others and therefore does not qualify as servicemark use. Text Copyright John L. Welch 2024.
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