Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 19 MARCH 2012

Letters of Protest: A Tool To Avoid The "Trademark Bully" Label

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Contributor
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

Mintz is a litigation powerhouse and business accelerator serving leaders in life sciences, private...

View firm profile
Explore more from Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

Thanks to DuetsBlog for providing an update on the EAT MOR CHIKIN v. EAT MORE KALE dispute that was the subject of our prior post.

United StatesIntellectual Property

Thanks to DuetsBlog for providing an update on the EAT MOR CHIKIN v. EAT MORE KALE dispute that was the subject of our prior post. As we reported in December, the Trademark Office issued an office action on the pending trademark application for EAT MORE KALE for t-shirts, etc. and determined that "no similar registered or pending marks ... would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). TMEP §704.02 [likelihood of confusion grounds]." Shortly after issuance of this office action, as reported, an "Administrative Response" appeared in the prosecution file entitled "Letter of Protest Memorandum." The memorandum noted that the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Examination Policy had granted a Letter of Protest filed by an undisclosed party and specifically directed the examiner to consider U.S. Reg. Nos. 2,062,809, 2,197,973, 2,538,050 – registrations for EAT MOR CHIKIN owned by Chik-fil-A. The examiner must now make

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.

See more popular content from