The TTABlog
SEPTEMBER 23, 2022
Petitioner claimed that its restaurant had a "soft opening" in September 2014, with the mark THE HAPPIEST HOUR displayed on signage, but its evidence was "contradictory, inconsistent, and indefinite." Several press releases were issued at that time, but they did not constitute service mark use. Emphasis by the Board).
LexBlog IP
DECEMBER 19, 2023
” Scrooge wasn’t the only one who had that idea: a business owner registered ALWAYS CHRISTMAS & Design as a service mark in 1995 (Registration No. As Ebeneezer Scrooge put it after being visited by the three ghosts: “I will honour Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year.”
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
IP and Legal Filings
MARCH 28, 2024
Many film titles or names like Dhoom (ID: 1319835), Padman (ID: 3749859), 3 Idiots (ID: 1940729), and Singham (ID: 3672533), have been registered as a service mark under class 41, of the fourth schedule of the Trademark Rule, 2001. V RGV Film Factory, 138 (2007) DLT 312 [5] Dishti Titus, Movie Titles – Protected under Indian Law?
Patently-O
APRIL 20, 2022
The USPTO refused to register Glascoe’s mark SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF GOD for use as a service mark when “analyzing the process of creating a human being, the earth, the universe and its environment.” In re Glascoe (Fed. ” I know what you are thinking–deceptively misdescriptive. 3d 960, 963 (Fed.
IP and Legal Filings
NOVEMBER 1, 2022
Cambodian trademark law defines a “mark” as any visible sign capable of distinguishing the goods (trademark) or services (service mark) of an enterprise. Cambodia adopts the International Classification of Goods and Services under the Nice Agreement (8th Edition. The applied goods/services should be specified; vi.
LexBlog IP
SEPTEMBER 29, 2022
The level of attention of the average consumer, deemed to be reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, is likely to vary according to the category of goods or services in question (judgment of 10 October 2007, Bang & Olufsen v OHIM (Shape of a loudspeaker ), T‑460/05, EU:T:2007:304, paragraph 32).
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
52 
Let's personalize your content