The TTABlog

SEPTEMBER 14, 2023

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

Law Registration Trademark Copying 113

Patently-O

MAY 2, 2024

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.

Trademark 57

Trademark Designs Design Registration 57

43(B)log

FEBRUARY 23, 2024

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.

Registration 59

Registration Branding Brands Branding 59

LexBlog IP

DECEMBER 2, 2022

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. Fancy Pants Prods.,

Designs 40

Designs Design Registration Copying 40

The TTABlog

MAY 8, 2023

Unsurprisingly, the Board dismissed Professor Rebecca Curtin's opposition to registration of the mark RAPUNZEL for dolls and toy figures, finding that Curtin, as a mere consumer of fairytale-themed products, failed to prove her entitlement to a statutory cause of action. Rebecca Curtin v, United Trademark Holdings, Inc.

Registration 40

Registration False Advertising Trademark Business 40

43(B)log

FEBRUARY 24, 2022

The examiner rejected on 2(a) and 2(c) grounds, but the TTAB affirmed only on 2(c), so the court doesn’t reach whether 2(a) can cover this kind of disparaging mark. Elster’s mark is speech by a private party in a context in which controversial speech is part-and-parcel of the traditional trademark function.”

Privacy 78

Privacy Government Registration Intellectual Property 78

43(B)log

FEBRUARY 23, 2024

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?

Trademark 45

Trademark Law Branding Brands 45