article thumbnail

Hark! The Herald Trademarks Sing: A Holiday Trademark Extravaganza

LexBlog IP

‘Twas a day in December, when all through the blog, we were writing ‘bout trademarks, as if in a fog. When, what to our wondering eyes should appear, but holiday trademarks, so lovely and dear. The PTO said, as it reviewed the files, we’ve got holiday trademarks, we’ve got ‘em in piles! 5361645).

article thumbnail

Protection of Trademarks in Cambodia

IP and Legal Filings

Trademark and other subjects of industrial property, such as patent, industrial design, utility solution, etc. Cambodian trademark law defines a “mark” as any visible sign capable of distinguishing the goods (trademark) or services (service mark) of an enterprise. [Image Source: Freepic].

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Full Of Sound And Query, Signifying Something: Recent Noise Over Acoustic Trademarks

LexBlog IP

(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.

article thumbnail

Beyond the Big Screen: The Legal Odyssey of Film Titles in India

IP and Legal Filings

V RGV Film Factory” [4] , the court rules that a movie title’s eligibility for trademark protection depends on its acquisition of secondary meanings and uniqueness. [5] V RGV Film Factory, 138 (2007) DLT 312 [5] Dishti Titus, Movie Titles – Protected under Indian Law? Sholay Media and Entertainment Pvt. Mondaq (Dec.

Cinema 80
article thumbnail

Precedential No. 26: TTAB Denies "HAPPIEST HOUR" Cancellation Petition for Failure to Prove Priority Via Technical or Analogous TM Use

The TTABlog

Its evidence regarding its first rendering of services under the mark was "characterized by contradictions, inconsistencies, and indefiniteness." Its claim of use analogous to trademark use failed because its prior publicity "was not sufficiently clear, widespread and repetitive." Emphasis by the Board). See Couture v.