Your search for ‘Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.’ returned 1,716 results

Diesel S.p.A. opposed an application to register MISEL DISEL for "smooth shave enhancer, namely, pre-shave liquid," claiming a likelihood of confusion with its registered mark DIESEL for, inter alia, pre- and after shave creams and lotions.

The USPTO refused registration of the mark SLAY OR PREY, in standard character form, for various clothing items including T-shirts...

The USPTO refused to register the mark ULTIMATE GEL, finding it merely descriptive of "Beds for household pets; Chair cushions; Mattress toppers; Mattresses; Pillows."

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.

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...

The Board affirmed the USPTO's refusal to register the proposed mark IT'S ABOUT THE FABRICSfor performance fabrics, finding that on applicant's specimens of use the phrase refers to a component of clothing...

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;...

The USPTO refused registration of the proposed mark EVERLASTING ROSE for "Ornaments of glass; Ornaments of glass, namely, glass roses," finding confusion likely with the identical mark registered for "Dried flower arrangements;

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

Here are three recent appeals from Section 2(d) refusals. As previously mentioned, a former TTAB judge once told me that one can predict the outcome of a Section 2(d) case 95% of the time...

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 ...

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.

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...

The USPTO refused to register the mark CITRUS CLUB for "cocktail lounge services" [CLUB disclaimed], finding confusion likely with the registered mark CITRUS KITCHEN

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."

Bernatello's Pizza opposed an application to register the mark LOTSA STONE FIRED PIZZA for restaurant services (STONE FIRED PIZZA disclaimed).

The USPTO refused to register the mark THE BEAUTIFUL THINGS, in standard character form, for "operating on-line marketplaces featuring clothing and jewelry".

Balancing the relevant duPont factors, the Board found confusion likely and it sustained the opposition.