Remove ttab-trademark-opposition
article thumbnail

Precedential No. 26: Listing of Application on ESTTA Cover Sheet Suffices for Claim of Common Law Rights in Opposition to Section 66(a) Application

The TTABlog

In its notice of opposition, opposer claimed a likelihood of confusion with its marks STERLING , in standard character and design form, and STERLING COMPUTERS. When it filed an amended notice of opposition, opposer added common law rights in its STERLING marks. International Business Machines Corporation , Opposition No.

Law 113
article thumbnail

Federal Circuit Untangles Trademark Dispute

Patently-O

In this appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) decision sustaining an opposition proceeding and refusing registration of the standard character mark #TODECACHO for hair combs. This is known as the “trial period” of the opposition proceeding. ” quoting Am.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

TMSR Session 2: Administrative Agencies and Specialized Courts

43(B)log

But they have virtually no experience, except in TTAB, with other side of the equation, remedies, 1A limitations, etc. TTAB is better suited, b/c at least get microcosm of LOC cases b/c of competing TM claimants. Lemley: suggests maybe the existence of the opposition process changes things.

article thumbnail

No Likelihood of Confusion Between “SMOKES & Design” and “SMOK”

LexBlog IP

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) found that there was no likelihood of confusion between the “SMOKES & Design” mark owned by Fancy Pants Products, LLC (“Applicant”), generally used in connection with cannabis products, and the “SMOK” mark owned by Shenzhen IVPS Technology Co. Shenzhen IVPS Tech.

Designs 40
article thumbnail

15th Trademark Scholars’ Roundtable: Session 1: Congress and the Courts (including the role of the Supreme Court)

43(B)log

Introduction: Rebecca Tushnet What might we derive from things the Court has said about trademark of late? The purpose of trademark is consumer protection; source-identification is the most relevant consideration but not the entirety of TM law. It will affect the TTAB. Dinwoodie and Janis taken out of context?