Your search for ‘Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.’ returned 1,717 results

Okay, this sounds rather straightforward doesn't it? The services are identical: retail furniture stores. Therefore a lesser degree of similarity between the marks is needed to support a finding of likely confusion.

On August 28, 2023, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in In re Cellect, LLC, affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB)...

The Board reversed a Section 2(e)(5) refusal to register the package configuration mark shown below, for "canned fish; tinned fish."

The TTAB sun again failed to shine on Applicant SolarWindow Technologies, Inc.

In a mere 13 pages, the Board denied a petition for cancellation of a registration for the word-plus-design mark shown below, for "magazines in the field of current events and sports," rejecting pro se Petitioner Steven Westlake's claims of abandonment and fraud.

The USPTO refused registration of the mark IVE for "protective work gloves," finding it likely to cause confusion with the registered mark EB & IVE for various clothing items.

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 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...

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

Can you guess what a press release, a contract manufacturer's quote, an offer to sell a new product, a trade show display, a grant application, and a regulatory submission may all have in common...

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].

The Board again rejected a constitutional challenge to Section 2(c) of the Trademark Act, while affirming a refusal of TRUMP TOO SMALL for shirts, finding that the mark "comprises the name of...

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...

Pamela Chestek, sometimes known as the IP Ownership Maven (blog), applied to register the mark CHESTEK LEGAL on behalf of her law firm, for "legal services."

A single registration for M CUSHION, in standard characters, for cushions and pillows was distinguishable because of the word CUSHION.

On May 18, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi et al., Number 21-757, holding that a patent claiming an entire class of processes, machines, manufactures...

In a hard fought TTABattle, the Board affirmed a refusal to register CARDLESS CASH as a trademark for ATM software and services, on the ground of genericness. For the sake of completeness...