Remove what-is-likelihood-of-confusion
article thumbnail

What Is a Likelihood of Confusion

Erik K Pelton

The following is an edited transcript of my video, What Is a Likelihood of Confusion. A phrase that comes up all the time in several different aspects of trademark work is likelihood of confusion. Often, if you ask a group of people, “Are these two marks, given the circumstances, likely to be confused?

Trademark 147
article thumbnail

“Comparison Prior Art” Must Be Tied to the Same Article of Manufacture as That Claimed

Intellectual Property Law Blog

15, 2023) , the Federal Circuit vacated a jury verdict of non-infringement in a design-patent infringement action filed by Columbia Sportswear against Seirus Innovative Accessories. Design Patent No. Background Columbia asserted U.S. These products (e.g., gloves) have a wavy pattern with the “Seirus” logo throughout the design.

Art 162
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

All about responding to a Trademark Office Action

Erik K Pelton

The following is an edited transcript of my video “Responding to a Trademark Office Action” After a trademark application is filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office, it is generally about nine months (as of May 2023) until anything is heard back by the applicant. Sometimes they’re more serious and substantive.

Trademark 130
article thumbnail

Logos Remain Relevant: Source Confusion and Design Patent Infringement

Patently-O

This post will focus on another key issue from the case – the relevance of logos in design patent infringement analysis. Design Patent Infringement vs. Trademark Infringement The standards for proving design patent infringement and trademark infringement differ significantly regarding the relevance of consumer confusion about product source.

article thumbnail

Federal Circuit’s Determination on Whether Fraudulent Conduct in Obtaining Incontestable Status Warrants the Mark’s Cancellation

Intellectual Property Law Blog

s (“Chutter”) predecessor-in-interest, Dan Tana, petitioned the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to cancel the ’764 Mark based on an alleged likelihood of confusion with Tana’s common law “DAN TANA” mark for restaurant services. Patent and Trademark Office or in the courts.” In Great Concepts, LLC, v. Chutter, Inc. ,

article thumbnail

state consumer protection law gives competitor plaintiff more leeway than Lanham Act, court holds

43(B)log

I’m going to ignore the patent claims. Defendant SBC sent a ninety-page document titled “Design Manual” to at least six prospective clients, including the statement: “These patented methods have now been tested and qualified for use on projects in accordance with governing building codes (AISC 341).”

article thumbnail

When you can't know a book by its title, and the law may even leave you confused

The IPKat

A salient case in point are book titles and the potential confusion that they can engender, thanks to an apparent lacuna in the law. Find the lacuna Still, there is the lingering sense that confusion had taken place, even if not precisely in the accepted trademark sense. What do we make of this? So, there it is.

Law 126