Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 03 MARCH 2020

Precedential No. 8: TTAB Dissolves Concurrent Use Proceeding Because Plaintiff's Proposed Territory Overlapped With Defendant's Use

Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
Wolf Greenfield & Sacks
Contributor
Explore more from Wolf Greenfield & Sacks

In this concurrent use proceeding, Hanscomb Consulting, Inc. ("HCI") sought a concurrent use registration for the mark HANSCOMB CONSULTING & Design (shown below)...

United StatesIntellectual Property

In this concurrent use proceeding, Hanscomb Consulting, Inc. ("HCI") sought a concurrent use registration for the mark HANSCOMB CONSULTING & Design (shown below) for various business services, covering the entire United States except for two geographical areas (Hinsdale, Illinois and Los Angeles, California). HCI conceded that Hanscomb Limited ("HL") owns an application to register HANSCOMB for identical services and that HL may have common law rights in those two locations. The Board, however, found that HC has prior rights in "many more locales throughout the country" and therefore that HCI was not entitled to the concurrent use registration it sought. Hanscomb Consulting, Inc. v. Hanscomb Limited, Concurrent Use No. 94002720 (February 26, 2020) [precedential] (Opinion by Judge Thomas W. Wellington).

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