1,424 results found

Tasty Greens LLC opposed an application to register the mark ONE GREEN for nutritional supplements, claiming a likelihood of confusion with its registered mark 8GREENS, also for nutritional supplements.

The USPTO refused to register the mark RUFF CHEWERS, in standard characters (CHEWERS disclaimed), for dog and pet toys.

Each of the parties to this Section 2(d) cancellation proceeding filed a motion for summary judgment.

So far this year, the Board has affirmed more than 90% of the Section 2(d) refusals it has reviewed on appeal. Here are three recent ones. No hints this time. How do you think they came out?

Under Section 6(a) of the Trademark Act, "[t]he Director may require the applicant to disclaim an unregistrable component of a mark otherwise registrable."

So far this year, the Board has reversed 7 of the more than 130 Section 2(d) refusals that it has reviewed. Here are three recent Board decisions.

The TTAB recently decided the appeals from the three Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusals summarized below. Actually, two involved disclaimer requirements.

So far this year, the TTAB has affirmed 177 of the 190 Section 2(d) refusals on appeal (about 93%).

The Board affirmed a refusal to register the mark VANILLA JAVA PORTER for beer [PORTER disclaimed] on the ground that applicant, who was seeking registration under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act...

Last week, the Board affirmed two Section 1 and 45 refusals to register on the ground that the respective specimens were unacceptable for registration.

L-Nutra insisted that a consumer could not, just by looking at the mark, understand that the goods require a medical consultation.

The Board affirmed a Section 2(e)(1) refusal to register APPLE SUGAR, finding the proposed mark to be merely descriptive of "natural sweetener, sugar substitutes

Those of a certain age will remember The Cyrkle and their mid 1960s hit songs, "Red Rubber Ball" and "Turn-Down Day."

The USPTO refused registration of the mark TERNURA for cigars, finding it likely to cause confusion with the identical mark registered for "liquor; tequila; vodka; wines."

The TTAB recently decided the appeals from the three Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusals summarized below.

The TTAB recently decided the appeals from the three Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion refusals summarized below. Keeping in mind that, by my estimate, 90 % of Section 2(d) appeals result...

The Board has affirmed 96 of the first 100 Section 2(d) appeals that came before it this year. Here are three more for your consideration. How do you think they came out? [Results in first comment].

A TTAB Administrative Trademark Judge once said to me that one can predict the outcome of a Section 2(d) appeal 95% of the time just by looking at the marks and the involved goods or services.