Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 11

Total war: General Mills successfully opposes registration of “total” for yogurt

Pattishall McAuliffe Newbury Hilliard & Geraldson LLP
-
USA
-
November 28 2011

An 11-year dispute over whether “Total” yogurt is confusingly similar to “Total” cereal came to an end in September at least in the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Does CRACKBERRY parody BLACKBERRY? TTAB says “no”

Pattishall McAuliffe Newbury Hilliard & Geraldson LLP
-
USA
-
March 1 2012

On February 27, 2012, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board issued its precedential opinion in Research in Motion Limited v. Defining Presence Marketing Group, Inc. and Axel Ltd. Co., Opposition No. 91181076, refusing registration of CRACKBERRY because it is likely to be confused with and to dilute RIM’s famous BLACKBERRY mark

The mud thickens: the Federal Circuit issues its latest decision on utilitarian functionality, refusing registration to Becton Dickinson’s blood collection tube cap

Pattishall McAuliffe Newbury Hilliard & Geraldson LLP
-
USA
-
April 16 2012

On April 12, 2012, the Federal Circuit waded into the increasingly muddy waters of utilitarian functionality law with its decision in In re Becton, Dickinson and Co., 2012 WL 1216281

“Classic” case of trademark infringement? Top Tobacco and North Atlantic Operating Company argue whether Classic Canadian and Classic American Blend are confusingly similar

Pattishall McAuliffe Newbury Hilliard & Geraldson LLP
-
USA
-
December 8 2011

Top Tobacco, L.P. v. North Atlantic Operating Co., Inc. (TTAB Nov. 21, 2011) shows the very fluid application of facts to law in trademark cases, and therefore, that reasonable minds can differ

ROLEX vs. ROLL-X: TTAB says that Roll-X for x-ray tables does not dilute famous ROLEX mark

Pattishall McAuliffe Newbury Hilliard & Geraldson LLP
-
USA
-
January 17 2012

In a precedential decision issued on December 5, 2011, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) held that ROLEX was famous for watches under the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006, 15 USC 1125 (c) (“TDRA”), but the mark ROLL-X was not sufficiently similar to create a likelihood of dilution

Defendant hoist manufacturer awarded attorney’s fees in trade dress case Secalt v Wuxi Shenxi Construction Machinery

Pattishall McAuliffe Newbury Hilliard & Geraldson LLP
-
USA
-
February 9 2012

In Secalt S.A. v. Wuxi Shenxi Construction Machinery Co., Ltd., Nos. 10-17007 & 11-15066, 2012 WL 373102 (9th Cir. Feb. 7, 2012), plaintiff, a manufacturer of traction hoists (typically used for commercial building and window washing), alleged that it owned trade dress rights in the following design

Recent cases show that utilitarian functionality is a serious and common impediment to trade dress protection

Pattishall McAuliffe Newbury Hilliard & Geraldson LLP
-
USA
-
June 15 2012

A product shape or package must be non-functional to qualify for trade dress protection

Bare trademark rights? Naked Cowboy’s infringement action against CBS dismissed

Pattishall McAuliffe Newbury Hilliard & Geraldson LLP
-
USA
-
March 16 2012

Robert John Burck has made a career as a New York street performer

When does the First Amendment trump trademark law? 11th Circuit adopts Rogers v. Grimaldi test

Pattishall McAuliffe Newbury Hilliard & Geraldson LLP
-
USA
-
September 10 2012

In 1989, the Second Circuit adopted a balancing test to weigh the value of an artist’s First Amendment rights against the value of trademarks depicted in the artist’s work

“We the people” should avoid trashing our own trademarks

Pattishall McAuliffe Newbury Hilliard & Geraldson LLP
-
USA
-
December 6 2011

One of the most common reasons trademark applications are refused registration is that the applied-for marks are confusingly similar to other marks that are already registered