Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 14 DECEMBER 2018

Snoop Dogg Prevails Over Gleissner

Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C.
Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C.
Contributor
Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C.

Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C.

At Fross Zelnick, we secure and defend our clients’ most valuable assets—their brands, designs, and...

View firm profile
Explore more from Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C.

Evidence submitted included confirmation that the sole director of the applicant company Snoop International Limited was none other than Michael Gleissner.

United KingdomIntellectual Property

Calvin Broadus v. Snoop International Ltd. (U.K. Opposition No. 408342) (Decision No. 0-424-18)

On behalf of superstar rapper Snoop Dogg (whose real name is Calvin Broadus), we were successful in overseeing a trademark opposition against an entity related to Michael Gleissner, a serial trademark filer. Several brands including Apple, BMW, and Donald Trump have challenged Gleissner marks, but success has been elusive in a number of these oppositions. In fact, in the same week that Snoop Dog prevailed in his opposition, international retailer Mango's challenge to a Gleissner mark was dismissed. In the Snoop Dogg matter, the U.K. Intellectual Property Office found in favor of Snoop Dogg's opposition against a SNOOP trademark, determining that Gleissner's entity's application, which was filed in Class 14 (jewelry) and Class 26 (lace and embroidery) was filed in bad faith, and awarding Snoop Dogg £1,300. This decision was due in large measure to the extensive evidence

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from