Remove 2024 Remove Copyright Remove Designs Remove Service Mark
article thumbnail

TTABlog Test: Is CROSSFIRST BANK & Circle Design Confusable with Banc of California's RIng Design?

The TTABlog

92075496 (January 14, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Michael B. Of course, since the involved services are identical in part, the Board must presume that the channels of trade and classes of consumers for the identical services overlap. It included evidence regarding use of that mark with the bank name.

Designs 67
article thumbnail

Three Recent TTAB Oppositions Sustained on the Ground of Non-use

The TTABlog

Here are three recent TTAB rulings, each sustaining an opposition based upon non-use of the opposed service mark. For a service mark, the services must be rendered in order to qualify as "use in commerce" as defined in Section 45 of the Lanham Act. 91277497 (January 18, 2024) [not precedential] (By the Board).

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

Trade Name Use is not Trademark Use, Says TTAB

The TTABlog

88291540 (February 14, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Martha B. A designation used merely as a trade name cannot be registered under the provisions of the Trademark Act." "A designation used merely as a trade name cannot be registered under the provisions of the Trademark Act." Welch 2024. 15 U.S.C. §

article thumbnail

WE’RE HERE TO HELP WITH YOUR LEGAL NEEDS! Fails to Function as a Source Indicator for. Guess What?

The TTABlog

The Board affirmed a refusal to register the proposed mark WE’RE HERE TO HELP WITH YOUR LEGAL NEEDS! finding that the phrase fails to function as a service mark for "legal services." 90432695 (March 25, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cynthia C. Text Copyright John L. Welch 2024.

article thumbnail

Print-on-Demand Services Face More Legal Woes–Canvasfish v. Pixels

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

The print-on-demand service at issue is Pixels, who has appeared on this blog before. The plaintiff paints fish, has a trademark in his name, “DeYoung,” and has registered copyrights. Pixels.com, LLC , 2024 WL 885356 (W.D. Trademark Infringement. Cite to Ohio State v. Trademark Counterfeiting.

Artwork 96
article thumbnail

At USPTO's Request, CAFC Re-designates as Precedential Its EVERYBODY VS RACISM Failure-to-Function Affirmance

The TTABlog

e), the CAFC has re-designated as precedential its opinion in In re GO & Associates, LLC , Appeal No. 14, 2023, re-designated as precedential, January 22, 2024). Text Copyright John L. At the request of the USPTO under Fed. 2022-1961 (Fed. The TMEP is not the law - ed. ]. Read comments and post your comment here.

Designs 62