Dealer Financial Services Trademark Held Confusingly Similar to Dealers Finance Company TrademarkTrademark Services | Trademark Services
On June 30, 2011, the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) issued a non-precedential opinion in In re MarineMax, Inc. In its decision, the TTAB affirmed the Examining Attorney’s refusal to register MarineMax, Inc.’s trademark applications for DEALER FINANCIAL SERVICES and DEALER FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, both in standard characters and in design form based […]
A Registrant’s Natural Scope Of Expansion Is Not Applicable in Ex Parte Trademark ProceedingsTrademark Services | Trademark Services
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s recent decision In re Kysela Pere et Fils, Ltd. found that the Applicant’s application for HB in standard characters for wine was confusingly similar to the Registrant’s HB design marks for beer. However, in so holding, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board took the time to note that the […]
Trademark Specimens Are Strictly Construed | Trademark Services
At some point during the application process, an applicant must provide the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office with a specimen showing the applied for mark in connection with the goods or services identified in the trademark application. If the specimen shows the mark in use with goods or services that similar but still slightly different […]
Introducing Internet Evidence in a Trademark Opposition ProceedingTrademark Services | Trademark Services
In Rocket Trademarks Pty Ltd. v. Phard S.p.A., the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) reaffirmed its new standard for introducing Internet evidence in a trademark opposition proceeding. Phard had objected to certain Internet printouts that were introduced during a deposition on the grounds that the deponent did not properly authenticate the printouts since the […]
TTAB Finds FLATSCREEN CONNOISSEUR Confusingly Similar to CONNOISSEURTrademark Services | Trademark Services
In In re Nuvision U.S., Inc., the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) held that Applicant’s FLATSCREEN CONNOISSEUR mark for “home theatre products, namely televisions, LCD televisions, plasma televisions, flat panel televisions and DVD players” was confusingly similar to Registrant’s prior registered CONNOISSEUR mark for “sound equipment, namely, loudspeakers.” In affirming the Examining Attorney’s refusal, […]