2019 Registration Service Mark Trademark 
The TTABlog
MAY 29, 2024
Last year, the Board affirmed a refusal to register the proposed mark A S LIVE FOREVER , in the stylized form shown below, for various goods in 14 classes, finding that the phrase fails to function as a trademark. 87405211, 2019 WL 6245131, at *4 (TTAB 2019) (internal punctuation omitted). TTABlogged here ].
The IPKat
DECEMBER 14, 2023
Furthermore, Nollywood actress Ann Njemanze sued famous filmmaker Zeb Ejiro and Filmone Entertainment and Film Trybe Media for infringing on her copyright and trademark of “DOMITILLA”. Things, however, took a different turn in when Njemanze's application and registration of Domittila as a trademark were revoked by the Trademark Tribunal.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
The TTABlog
FEBRUARY 22, 2022
129 USPQ2d 1148, 1149-50 (TTAB 2019)." Applicant's use of the "TM" symbol does not transform the phrase into a trademark. Its intent that the phrase function as a service mark is irrelevant. And so, the Board concluded that GET ORDAINED is merely descriptive of applicant's services, and lacks acquired distinctiveness.
LexBlog IP
SEPTEMBER 29, 2022
(I am unaware of any reported comparison, but I did find the latter compared to a toilet flushing and have seen the former’s trademark suffer indignities at times too ). The object then is to hear out all sides, and offer some thoughts on the recent clamor around acoustic marks and the questions that they present.
The TTABlog
JANUARY 17, 2024
Banc of California petitioned to cancel a registration for the mark shown below left, on the ground of likely confusion with its registered mark shown below right, both for, inter alia , banking services. Since both parties rely on issued registrations, priority was an issue in this proceeding. Cancellation No.
The TTABlog
DECEMBER 18, 2023
Applicant UNIP (apparently owned in part by LeBron James) counterclaimed for cancellation of that registration on the ground of likelihood of confusion. 91244990 (December 14, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Mark A. In any case, UNIP's evidence showed that the assignor continued to use the mark prior to the assignment.
The TTABlog
AUGUST 26, 2022
The Board found that Applicant's specimen of use "does not reflect that consumers of Applicant's services will perceive [either mark] as trademarks indicating. television entertainment services." In re DePorter , 129 USPQ2d 1298, 1299 (TTAB 2019) (citing 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051, 1052, and 1127). Serial Nos.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
116 
Let's personalize your content