JD Supra Law
NOVEMBER 29, 2023
We would like to bring to your attention that there are new “address for service” rules coming into effect on 1 January 2024 at the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) which may have an impact on your trade mark portfolio. By: Morrison & Foerster LLP
The TTABlog
FEBRUARY 1, 2024
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in order to qualify as "use in commerce" as defined in Section 45 of the Lanham Act. 91277497 (January 18, 2024) [not precedential] (By the Board).
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
The TTABlog
MARCH 12, 2024
92071814 (March 8, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Melanye K. Abundance had a license from Mrs. Patricia Dampier to use the mark MRS. COLORADO for its beauty pageant, but that license was terminated in 2015. Mere publicity about services to be rendered in the future does not lay a foundation for an application.
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 finding that the phrase fails to function as a service mark for "legal services." 90432695 (March 25, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cynthia C. Welch 2024.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.
The TTABlog
MARCH 22, 2024
92068213 (March 20, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Peter W. The Board pointed out that "[t]he addition of a generic or highly descriptive term does not necessarily detract from the separate commercial impression created by the mark APPLE alone." Welch 2024. Charles Bertini v. Cancellation No. Text Copyright John L.
The TTABlog
FEBRUARY 16, 2024
The Board affirmed a refusal to register the proposed mark EXPERIMENTAL AND APPLIED SCIENCES for “Dietary and nutritional supplements” on the ground that the mark is used solely as a trade name to identify applicant's business and therefore is not registrable. 88291540 (February 14, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Martha B.
The TTABlog
FEBRUARY 7, 2024
91249613 (January 31, 2024) [Not precedential] (Opinion by Judge David K. As plaintiff in this proceeding, Opposer Stott had the burden to prove prior ownership of the subject mark by a preponderance of the evidence. The group owns the service mark. Welch 2024. Billy Stott v. Text Copyright John L.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
74 
Let's personalize your content