EUIPO APPLE and OPPLE are visually and aurally smilar at least to an average degree – 2
The Opposition Division applied the relevant legal standard applicable to short marks (typically reserved for two/three ...
出所混同のおそれ
EUIPO 
EUIPO FRUIT CREATIONS and COCA-COLA CREATIONS have only very few visual and few phonetic similarities
The greater or lesser degree of distinctiveness of the constituent elements of the signs at issue which are common to th...
EUIPO What you see is what you get
For consumers who perceive the contested sign as having five vertical parallel stripes, not only is the number of stripe...
USPTO Are T-Shirts and Hats Related to Toy Action Figures?
The evidence provided by the Examining Attorney suggests that toy action figures, tshirts, and hats can be relatively in...
USPTO Is TROOMY for Supplements Confusable with TROOP for Mushroom-Containing Supplements?
We must “give the identified in the application their full scope in our analysis of the second DuPont factor.” On its fa...
USPTO What constitutes a relevant relationship between the goods?
Complementary goods are not always related in a way that increases the likelihood of confusion. What matters is whether ...
USPTO TTAB Rejects Flimsy Consent Agreement – 4
The Consent Agreement, which was executed on June 1, 2023, does not indicate the period of time of such simultaneous use...
USPTO TTAB Rejects Flimsy Consent Agreement – 3
We also consider whether and to what extent the parties have agreed that they will make efforts to prevent confusion and...
USPTO TTAB Rejects Flimsy Consent Agreement – 2
Although the Consent Agreement shows that market participants Registrant and Applicant have affirmatively agreed that Ap...
USPTO Is “1849 BOURBON” for Distilled Spirits Confusable With “1849” for Wine?
While the addition of the disclaimed BOURBON may be a point of difference in Applicant’s proposed mark in sound when ful...