1,424 results found

The Board dismissed this opposition to registration of the mark OUCARE (Stylized) for various medical apparatus, including blood pressure monitors, lancets, and therapeutic beds...

In an exhausting 96-page decision (including a 27-page appendix containing rulings on the evidentiary objections of the parties)...

The Board affirmed a Section 2(d) refusal of the proposed mark BRUNO AND THE HOOLIGANS, finding confusion likely with the registered mark THE HOOLIGANS...

The Board affirmed a refusal to register the applied-for mark DESIGNED WITH YOU IN MIND under Sections 1, 2, 3, and 45 of the Trademark Act.

The Board granted Applicant JFC Tobacco's motion to extend discovery, filed on the last day of the discovery period, to allow it to receive responses to its late-filed written discovery requests...

The Board ruled that TV Azteca had failed to establish a prima facie case of nonuse.

The USPTO refused to register the term CO-OP for "Bicycles, bicycle seats, bicycle wheels, bicycle tires, bicycle handlebars, bicycle forks, bicycle handle bar stems...

Finding that the bearded skull design, below, fails to function as a trademark for various clothing items, the Board affirmed a refusal to register under Sections 1, 2, and 45 of the Lanham Act.

The long and winding road to determination of the genericness of PRETZEL CRISPS for pretzel crackers has taken another turn.

The USPTO refused registration of the proposed mark J HUTTON for "Eyewear, eyewear frames and sunglasses," finding the mark to be primarily merely a surname under Section 2(e)(4).

Because opposer failed to allege use of her mark SULBING in the United States, the Board dismissed her claim of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).

In this Section 2(d) opposition, the Board denied Applicant Sunpoint's motion for summary judgment, ruling that neither claim preclusion nor issue preclusion applies to Opposer Valvoline's claim of likelihood of confusion ...

After reading the COHIBA decision, I decided that I had to turn to Professor Christine Haight Farley of American University Washington College of Law for her help in explaining what this is all about.

The Board affirmed a refusal to register the mark shown below, consisting of a red oval with a white border (acting as a carrier for the words "MELISSA & DOUG") for various toys...

The Board dismissed this opposition to registration of the mark SOME WATCHES TELL TIME ... SOME TELL A STORY for, inter alia, watches. Opposer Rolex alleged likelihood of confusion with...

In a 51-page opinion, the Board affirmed a refusal to register the product configuration shown below, for "handbags," finding the design to be generic and, alternatively, lacking in acquired distinctiveness:

The Board sustained an opposition to registration of the slogan REMEMBER THIS NAME for legal services on the ground that the phrase does not function as a service mark.

Weigel Stores applied to register the mark shown