Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 14 JUNE 2018

Precedential No. 21: TTAB Extends Safer Requirements To Internet Evidence Submitted By Applicants

Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
Contributor
Wolf Greenfield & Sacks

Wolf Greenfield & Sacks

Wolf, Greenfield is one of the 10 largest law firms in the United States devoted exclusively to...

View firm profile
Explore more from Wolf Greenfield & Sacks

In yet another decision involving the admissibility of Internet evidence, the Board made clear that its recent ruling in In re Mueller Sports Medicine ...

United StatesIntellectual Property

In yet another decision involving the admissibility of Internet evidence, the Board made clear that its recent ruling in In re Mueller Sports Medicine [TTABlogged here] extends to trademark applicants as well as examining attorneys. In Mueller, the Board held that Internet evidence submitted by an examining attorney that did not include the date of access and the pertinent URL was objectionable. Here, the evidence at issue was submitted by the applicant. However, since this applicant's faulty submission occurred prior to issuance of the Mueller decision, the Board decided to consider the evidence. Nonetheless, the Board affirmed Section 2(d) refusals of the mark INDIGO in standard character form and in the design forms shown below [AR disclaimed] for "optical lenses, namely, corrective lenses sold through eye care professionals," in view of the registered mark INDIGO for "ski glasses, ski goggles, goggles for sports, protective sport helmets; sunglasses, bags

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