Ads
related to: trademark refusal of registration agreement california
Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Marks that cannot themselves be registered as trademarks but have achieved secondary meaning can still be protected from unfair competition; under the 1881 Act, circuit courts do not have jurisdiction over a dispute by two parties of the same state not involving a registrable trademark Clinton E. Worden & Co. v. California Fig Syrup Co.
The registration of the "Surf City USA" trademark inflamed a historical dispute between the California coastal cities of Huntington Beach and Santa Cruz. [1]Both cities claimed the "Surf City" nickname, but after the Huntington Beach Conference and Visitors Bureau (now Visit Huntington Beach) filed three trademark applications for "Surf City USA" with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in ...
The concurrent use proceeding resumed, and in 1976, the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals awarded the Myrtle Beach hotel a federal trademark registration. [21] Even where a concurrent use registration is issued, the parties may eventually come to an agreement under which one party will surrender its registration.
A California man’s chances of trademarking “Trump too small” may be gone. The Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared inclined to side with the Biden Justice Department in rejecting the ...
A suggestive trademark tends to indicate the nature, quality, or a characteristic of the products or services in relation to which it is used, but does not describe this characteristic, and requires imagination on the part of the consumer to identify the characteristic. Suggestive marks invoke the consumer's perceptive imagination.
A gay-and family-owned bakery in Berkeley, California, released their trademark on mochi muffins after receiving heavy criticism and poor Yelp reviews from baker netizens in an uproar over cease ...
In 2011, Brunetti sought to register the trademark on Fuct to stop the knockoffs but was denied registration by the Office Examiner. It stated the word was phonetically similar to the expletive "fucked," which was well-established as a "scandalous" word under Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act.
Vidal v. Elster, 602 U.S. 286, is a United States Supreme Court case dealing with 15 U.S.C. § 1052, a provision of the Lanham Act regarding trademarks using the name of living individuals without their consent.
Ads
related to: trademark refusal of registration agreement california