The TTABlog

JANUARY 17, 2024

92075496 (January 14, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Michael B. Of course, since the involved services are identical in part, the Board must presume that the channels of trade and classes of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

Designs Design Registration Service Mark 67

The TTABlog

FEBRUARY 16, 2024

88291540 (February 14, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Martha B. A “trade name” is defined in Section 45 of the Trademark Act as “any name used by a person to identify his or her business or vocation.” A designation used merely as a trade name cannot be registered under the provisions of the Trademark Act."

Trademark 51

Trademark Designs Design Service Mark 51

The TTABlog

MARCH 27, 2024

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 finding that the phrase fails to function as a service mark for "legal services." 90432695 (March 25, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cynthia C. Welch 2024. In re Richard M. Russell , Serial No.

Service Mark 54

Service Mark Registration Trademark Designs 54

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

MARCH 5, 2024

The plaintiff paints fish, has a trademark in his name, “DeYoung,” and has registered copyrights. The plaintiff claims that Pixels’ users upload infringing images and refer to them by the trademark DeYoung. Trademark Infringement. Trademark Counterfeiting. eBay and Multi-Time Machine v.

Artwork 96

Artwork Trademark Publishing Marketing 96

Patently-O

JANUARY 26, 2024

by Dennis Crouch The Federal Circuit has just reissued this important trademark decision as precedential. I previously wrote about the case here: Crouch, Failures to Function and Likelihood of Confusion: Takeaways from Two Recent Federal Circuit Trademark Decisions, Patently-O (November 17, 2023). See, TMEP § 1202.04(b)

Registration 63

Registration Trademark Service Mark Trademark Law 63

The TTABlog

JANUARY 23, 2024

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). It pointed out that in Elster there was no issue as to whether the proposed mark TRUMP TOO SMALL functioned as a source identifier. 2022-1961 (Fed.

Designs 62

Designs Design Registration Service Mark 62