No likelihood of confusion this time as the TTAB finds beer and wine to be unrelated goods.
In Justin Vineyards & Winery LLC v. Crooked Stave, LLC, Applicant Crooked Stave, LLC sought registration of the word mark HOP SAVANT, with “HOP” disclaimed, for “beer” in International Class 32. Opposer Justin Vineyards and Winery
A recent trademark opposition is a lesson in what happens when there is a crowded field of similar trademarks.
In Inter-Industry Conference on Auto Collision Repair v. LM Industries Group, Inc., Applicant sought registration of the mark ICAR or land vehicles in International Class 12. Opposer filed a notice of opposition against the ICAR application
Trademark opposition proceedings are civil litigations before the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). Companies that wish to enforce their trademark rights through TTAB proceedings should take into account the following pre-filing considerations:
More than 5,000 trademark oppositions are filed every year. One of the grounds for bringing a trademark opposition is that the application is likely to cause confusion with the Opposer’s preexisting trademark. Yet many trademark opposers are unsuccessful and have their case dismissed. So prior to filing a notice of opposition, it is advisable
Not all trademark opposition proceedings proceed to a final decision. In fact, the vast majority of trademark opposition disputes are resolved between the parties or involve trademark mediation. Estimates are that over 90% of cases before the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board amicably settled before trial.
Short of the cost and expense of
For purposes of likelihood of confusion, not all beverage trademarks are created equal.
In Patrón Spirits International AG v. Conyngham Brewing Company, the Applicant sought registration of the mark PIRATE PISS for “beer, ale, and lager” in International Class 32. Opposer Patron had opposed the application based on its ownership of the previously registered
We recently spoke with Thomas Huthwaite, senior associate at Baldwins, to discuss New Zealand trademark protection issues. Thomas has been named as “one to watch’” by the Legal 500 Asia-Pacific.
Please tell us a little about your trademark and brand protection practice.
I am a New Zealand barrister and solicitor, and registered Patent Attorney. Since
We recently spoke with Blake Knowles, partner at Cullen’s, to discuss Australia trademark protection issues.
1. Please tell us a little about your background and brand protection experience.
Since joining Cullens, I have been responsible for managing, protecting and enforcing the trademark portfolios of several successful and well known Australian and overseas companies. I
The U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board recently found no likelihood of confusion between two apparel marks.
In Manhattan International Trade, Inc. and Pure & Simple Concepts, Inc. v. Industrie IP Party, Limited, the Applicant sought to register the design mark FINEST QUALITY GARMENT MAKERS INDUSTRIE TURN OF THE CENTURY CLOTHING EST 1999 for clothing.
A recent trademark opposition case before the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board presents a discussion of priority based on common law rights.
In Mazama Brewing Company, LLC v. Sumerian Brewing Company, LLC, Applicant sought registration of the mark HOPRUPTION DOUBLE IPA for beer in Class 32. Opposer brought a motion for partial summary