Legal 500
Log in or register
  • Rankings

    • Jurisdictions
    • Submissions
    • Future Lawyers
  • Firms & Lawyers

    • Service Providers
    • Barristers’ Sets
    • Networks
    • Interview with…
  • In-House

    • In-House Content
    • GC Powerlist
  • Knowledge Centre

    • Data Products
    • Legal Business
    • Market Intelligence
    • About us

      • Legal 500
      • FAQs
      • Marketing
      • Careers
      • Trust Centre
      • Contact us
  • Comparative Guides
  • Events
  • Legal 500 TV

About us

  • Legal 500
  • FAQs
  • Marketing
  • Careers
  • Trust Centre
  • Contact us
  • Deutschland DE
  • Paris FR
  • Rankings

    • Jurisdictions
    • Submissions
    • Future Lawyers
  • Firms & Lawyers

    • Service Providers
    • Barristers’ Sets
    • Networks
    • Interview with…
  • In-House

    • In-House Content
    • GC Powerlist
  • Knowledge Centre

    • Data Products
    • Legal Business
    • Market Intelligence
    • About us

      • Legal 500
      • FAQs
      • Marketing
      • Careers
      • Trust Centre
      • Contact us
  • Comparative Guides
  • Events
  • Legal 500 TV

About us

  • Legal 500
  • FAQs
  • Marketing
  • Careers
  • Trust Centre
  • Contact us
  • Deutschland DE
  • Paris FR

© 2026 Legalease Ltd. All rights reserved

Registered company in England & Wales No. 02427356 VAT GB 321 5727 22

Registered address: 188 Fleet Street, London, EC4A 2AG

  • Legal 500 Trust Centre
  • Contact Us
  • home
  • Market Intelligence
  • Search

1,424 results found

Use advanced search filters to refine your search

1 filter applied

Advanced search filters

Topics
Countries
Contributor
Content type
Show options
  • Article

    TTAB Test: Is ULTIMATE GEL Merely Descriptive Of Bedding Products?

    The USPTO refused to register the mark ULTIMATE GEL, finding it merely descriptive of "Beds for household pets; Chair cushions; Mattress toppers; Mattresses; Pillows."
    United StatesIntellectual Property
    Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
    Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
  • Article

    TTAB Test: Which One Of These Three Section 2(D) Refusals Was Reversed?

    It has been said that one can predict the outcome of a Section 2(d) appeal 95% of the time just by looking at the marks and the goods or services.
    United StatesIntellectual Property
    Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
    Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
  • Article

    TTAB Upholds Refusal Of "THIS IS FOR MY GIRLS" For Musical Services Because It Appears Only As A Song Title On Applicant's Specimens Of Use

    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...
    United StatesIntellectual Property
    Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
    Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
  • Article

    TTABlog Test: Are Clothing Items Related To Bath And Body Care Products Under Section 2(d)?

    The USPTO refused to register the proposed mark SUGAR BEACH for "Bathing suits; Beach cover-ups; Beachwear; Body suits; Bras; Dresses; Dresses for swimming; Jogging suits; Shirts; Swimwear;...
    United StatesIntellectual Property
    Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
    Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
  • Article

    TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Appeals From 2(e)(1) Mere Descriptiveness Refusals Turn Out? - May 26, 2021

    The TTAB recently decided the appeals from three Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusals summarized below.
    United StatesIntellectual Property
    Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
    Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
  • Article

    TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Mere Descriptiveness Appeals Come Out?

    The TTAB recently ruled on the appeals from the three Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusals summarized below.
    United StatesIntellectual Property
    Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
    Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
  • Article

    TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Recent TTAB Appeals Come Out? - November 22, 2019

    Here are three decisions issued by the TTAB two days ago, the first a Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusal, the second a Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion refusal, and the third a ...
    United StatesIntellectual Property
    Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
    Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
  • Article

    TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Section 2(d) Appeals Turn Out? - Monday, October 26, 2020

    A TTAB judge once said to me that one can predict the outcome of a Section 2(d) case 95% of the time just by looking at the marks and the goods or services.
    United StatesIntellectual Property
    Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
    Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
  • Article

    TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Section 2(e)(1) Mere Descriptiveness Appeals Come Out?

    The TTAB recently decided the appeals from three Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusals summarized below. Let's see how you do with them, keeping in mind that last year the Board affirmed...
    United StatesIntellectual Property
    Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
    Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
  • Article

    TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Section 2(e)(1) Mere Descriptiveness Appeals Come Out? - October 02, 2020

    The TTAB recently ruled on the appeals from the three Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusals summarized below.
    United StatesIntellectual Property
    Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
    Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
  • Article

    TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Section 2(e)(1) Mere Descriptiveness Appeals Turn Out? (June 26, 2020)

    The TTAB recently ruled on the appeals from three Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusals summarized below. Let's see how you do with them, keeping in mind that last year the Board...
    United StatesIntellectual Property
    Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
    Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
  • Article

    TTABlog Test: Is "BLUEBERRY MUFFIN" Generic For Beer?

    [This guest post was written by Kira-Khanh McCarthy, a 2L at University of Notre Dame Law School.] The USPTO refused to register BLUEBERRY MUFFIN, in standard characters
    United StatesIntellectual Property
    Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
    Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
  • Article

    TTABlog Test: Is CITRUS CLUB For Cocktail Lounge Services Confusable With CITRUS KITCHEN For Restaurant Services?

    The USPTO refused to register the mark CITRUS CLUB for "cocktail lounge services" [CLUB disclaimed], finding confusion likely with the registered mark CITRUS KITCHEN
    United StatesIntellectual Property
    Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
    Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
  • Article

    TTABlog Test: Is FAST DRINK Merely Descriptive Of Nutritional Meal Replacement Drinks?

    The USPTO refused to register the proposed mark FAST DRINK, finding it to be merely descriptive of "Nutritional meal replacement drinks adapted for medical use; herbal teas for medical treatments."
    United StatesIntellectual Property
    Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
    Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
  • Article

    TTABlog Test: Is INTEGRATED PERFORMANCE CARE SYSTEMS Confusable With This Word+Design Mark For Chiropractic Services?

    The USPTO refused to register the mark INTEGRATED PERFORMANCE CARE SYSTEMS for, inter alia, chiropractic services [CARE SYSTEMS disclaimed], finding a likelihood of confusion with the registered
    United StatesIntellectual Property
    Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
    Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
  • Article

    TTABlog Test: Is LOTSA STONE FIRED PIZZA For Restaurant Services Confusable With LOTZZA MOTZZA And LOTZZA HOTZZA For Pizza?

    Bernatello's Pizza opposed an application to register the mark LOTSA STONE FIRED PIZZA for restaurant services (STONE FIRED PIZZA disclaimed).
    United StatesIntellectual Property
    Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
    Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
  • Article

    TTABlog Test: Is "THE OFFICIAL SEXIFIT & Design" Confusable With "IFIT" For Fitness Services?

    Balancing the relevant duPont factors, the Board found confusion likely and it sustained the opposition.
    United StatesIntellectual Property
    Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
    Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
  • Article

    TTABlog Test: Three More Appeals From Section 2(D) Refusals

    A (current) TTAB Administrative Trademark Judge once said to me that one can predict the outcome of a Section 2(d) case 95%
    United StatesIntellectual Property
    Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
    Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
  • Article

    WYHA? CROME Confusable With CHROME GIRL For Hair Care Products, Says TTAB

    The USPTO refused registration of the mark CROME for various hair care products, finding the mark confusingly similar to the registered mark CHROME GIRL for, inter alia, hair care products [GIRL disclaimed].
    United StatesIntellectual Property
    Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
    Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
  • Article

    TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Section 2(e)(1) Mere Descriptiveness Appeals Turn Out?

    Last week, the TTAB ruled on the appeals from the three Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusals summarized below. Let's see how you do with them. Results will be found in the first comment.
    United StatesIntellectual Property
    Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
    Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
  • Showing 341–360 of 1424 results

    PreviousNext
    Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics