Section 2(a) - Deceptiveness:
- Precedential No. 9: TTAB Affirms 2(a) Deceptiveness Refusal of WHITE JASMINE for Tea
- TTAB Affirms Deceptiveness Refusal of "VALENCIA" for Rice
- Your Thoughts Regarding H.R. 1278 - the "Non-Disparagement of Native American Persons or Peoples in Trademark Registration Act of 2013"?
- Congressman Faleomavaega Introduces Bill To Cancel REDSKINS Registrations
- TTAB Affirms 2(a) Disparagement Refusal of STOP THE ISLAMISATION OF AMERICA
- CHAMPARTY Not Confusable With CHAMPAGNE for Sparkling Wine, Says TTAB
- KATZ Fight! TTAB Finds LIkelihood of Confusion but Dismisses Fraud Claim
- Test Your TTAB Judge-Ability: Is DIRK for Sunglasses Confusable With DIRK BIKKEMSBERG for Spectacles?
- Precedential No. 6: Applicant's Rule 133 Amendment Yields Dismissal of 2(d) Opposition
- Test Your TTAB Judge-Ability: Are VOLVO and LOVOL Confusable for Vehicles?
- Yankees Win! TTAB Sustains Opposition to "BASEBALLS EVIL EMPIRE" on Confusion and False Association Grounds
- Food Fight! TTAB Dismisses "WHERE FOOD COMES FROM" 2(d) Opposition
- TTAB Sustains 2(d) Opposition to WAL-ZYR, Finding it Confusable with ZYRTEC
- TTAB Deems "ANGEL" a Weak Formative in Computer Field, Reverses 2(d) Refusal
- WYHA? TTAB Affirms 2(d) Refusal of BRIX CELLARS over BRIX for Restaurant Services
- Test Your TTAB Judge-Ability: Are These Design Marks for Batteries Confusingly Similar?
- Test Your TTAB Judge-Ability on these Three Section 2(d) Appeals
- Finding "U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE" Famous But Inherently Weak, TTAB Dismisses 2(d) Cancellation Petition
- Precedential No. 42: In Rare Section 2(d) Color Case, TTAB Affirms Refusal of Teal for Sheaths over Blue for Catheters
- Test Your TTAB Judge-Ability On These Five Mere Descriptiveness Refusals
- Test Your TTAB Judge-Ability: Is "Property, intangible" Inherently Distinctive for an Intellectual Property Blog?
- Test Your TTAB Judge-Ability: Is LIVEVIEW Merely Descriptive of Game Scouting Cameras?
- Test Your TTAB Judge-Ability on these Five Mere Descriptiveness Refusals
- Test Your TTAB Judge-Ability on these Three Mere Descriptiveness Refusals
- Test Your TTAB Judge-Ability: Does the Stylization of this Mark Render it Inherently Distinctive?
- Precedential No. 40: On Summary Judgment, TTAB Rejects Claim that SMS Number Is Merely Descriptive of Mobile Search Services
Section 2(e)(2)- Primarily Geographically Descriptive:
Section 2(e)(3) - Primarily Geographically Deceptively Misdescriptive:
Section 2(e)(4) - Primarily Merely a Surname:
- Another Surnamed Law Firm Bites the TTAB Dust
- Precedential No. 2: TTAB Sustains Section 2(e)(4) Surname Opposition to "MILLER LAW GROUP" for Legal Services
- Precedential No. 7: TTAB Affirms Refusal to Register Peppermint Flavor and Scent for Nitroglycerin Spray
- Precedential No. 3: TTAB Affirms Alternative Refusals to Register Pet Food Container Design, Finding it Functional or Non-Distinctive
Failure to Function:
- Precedential No. 7: TTAB Affirms Refusal to Register Peppermint Flavor and Scent for Nitroglycerin Spray
- Precedential No. 5: TTAB Affirms Failure-to-Function Refusal of Battery Charger "Chirp"
- Precedential No. 4: TTAB Affirms Failure-to-Function Refusal of BLATANCY for Audio Recordings by Eponymous Performer
- Precedential No. 3: TTAB Affirms Alternative Refusals to Register Pet Food Container Design, Finding it Functional or Non-Distinctive
- Precedential No. 1: TTAB Affirms Ornamentality Refusal of Clothing Trim Design Mark
- TTAB Finds MECHANIC to be Generic for ... Guess What?
- TTAB Finds "ITICKETS" Generic for .... Guess What?
Ownership:
Use in Commerce/Specimen of Use/Drawing:
- Test Your TTAB Judge-Ability: Has This Pizza Slice Mark Been Mutilated?
- Test Your TTAB Judge-Ability on this Trademark Specimen of Use
- Test Your TTAB Judge-Ability: Does the Stylization of this Mark Render it Inherently Distinctive?
- Test Your TTAB Judge-Ability: Is This Specimen of Use Okay for the mark "JUXTA"?
- Precedential No. 41: TTAB Affirms SSFA CERTIFIED CODE COMPLIANT Refusal - Specimens Show Two Marks, Drawing One
Discovery/Evidence/Procedure:
- Precedential No. 6: Applicant's Rule 133 Amendment Yields Dismissal of 2(d) Opposition
- TTAB Confirms That Federal Registration Defense to Dilution Claim Lives On For Older Cases
- Precedential No. 39: Plaintiff That Relies Solely on a Supplemental Registration Cannot Prevail in a Section 2(d) Proceeding
- TTAB Vacates ROLEX No-Dilution Decision After AFP Withdraws Application During Appeal
Other:
- "BUSHWACKER" TTAB Brouhaha Heads to Federal District Court
- Erik Pelton's Summary of March 1st TPAC Public Meeting
- "REDSKINS" Disparagement Case Headlines TTAB's March 2013 Hearing Schedule
- U.S. Census Bureau "Frequently Occurring Surnames" from Census 2010
- TTAB Posts February 2013 Hearing Schedule
- District Court Lacks Power to Issue Subpoenas for TTAB Disqualification Petition
- What is an "Ongoing and Existing Business" For Purposes of the Anti-Trafficking Provision of Section 10?
- TTAB Posts January 2013 Hearing Schedule
- The Top Ten TTAB Decisions of 2012 [Part Two]
- The Top Ten TTAB Decisions of 2012 [Part One]
- Nevermind! USPTO Drops Idea of Moving Up Deadline for First Filing of Section 8 Declarations of Use
- The TTAB Issued 42 Precedential Decisions in 2012
- Supreme Court Affirms Dismissal of Already v. Nike, Finding Counterclaim Moot
- Foreign Trademark Owner Stumbles over U.S. Bona Fide Intent Requirement
Post a Comment