The USPTO refused to register the mark shown below left, for "retail store services featuring furniture, furniture paint and finishes, clothing, fashion accessories such as scarves, hats, shoes, rings, necklaces, ...
On May 23, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Belmora's petition for reconsideration en banc in the FLANAX case. Belmora LLC v. Bayer Consumer Care ...
The USPTO refused registration of the mark ELITE TEST 360 for “dietary and nutritional supplements for endurance sports,” finding it likely to cause confusion with the registered mark 360 TEST ...
The Board dismissed this opposition to registration of the mark WOD Snob for decorative magnets and athletic apparel because opposers, claiming common law rights in WODSNOB for athletic apparel, failed ...
The Board affirmed refusals to register the mark MAGNESITA for refractory bricks and related products, on the ground of genericness, and for providing information via a global computer network regarding ...
The USPTO refused registration of the mark shown below for "financial analysis and consultation," deeming it to be a phantom mark - i.e., a mark with a changeable element - ...
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB's ruling in In re Cordua Restaurants LP, 110 USPQ2d 1227 (TTAB 2014) [precedential] [TTABlogged here], finding the term ...
The Board affirmed a refusal to register the mark SAVE IT YOUR WAY for "creating an on-line community for registered users ...," finding that Applicant FTD failed to show use ...
I once heard a TTAB judge say that the outcome of most Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion cases can be predicted just by looking at the marks and the identified ...
The USPTO refused registration of the mark DIGITAL BOOTH for "metal phone booths." Applicant Packaging 22 argued that the mark is merely suggestive because "there is nothing digital about a ...