USPTO Is APPARITION Confusable with PHANTOM for Wine? – 2
APPARITION and PHANTOM are completely different words that otherwise share no similarities as to sound or appearance. In...
商標の類否
USPTO 
USPTO Is APPARITION Confusable with PHANTOM for Wine? – 1
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that if there is evidence that a mark, or an element of a mar...
EUIPO Just saying ‘It’s B’ doesn’t make it the same B! – 3
In the present case, the signs at issue coincide only in their letter ‘b’, which in itself is weakly distinctive, wherea...
EUIPO The comparison of the signs (OHIM v Shaker, C‑334/05 P) – 2
Assessment of the similarity between two marks means more than taking just one component of a composite trade mark and c...
USPTO Refusal of the mark LITTLE MEXICO for “Take-out restaurant services” [MEXICO disclaimed]
Considering the marks in their entireties, we acknowledge that the marks have some dissimilarities in sound and appearan...
USPTO Extensive Third-Party Use of “SIDECAR”
Commercial strength is a question of “whether consumers in fact associate the … mark with a unique source.” Evidence of ...
USPTO CRYSTAL OF ATLAN Confusable with HEROES OF ATLAN for computer game software
Consumer confusion has been held likely for marks that do not sound or look alike but that convey the same idea, stimula...
UKIPO Post-Sale Confusion is Relevant for Establishing Trade Mark Infringement
None of the CJEU authorities support the proposition that actionable infringement should be limited to post-sale confusi...
USPTO Is MAYELA Confusable with MAYA for Wine?
The MAYA and MAYELA marks are not identical, as MAYELA has the additional letters “EL” after the “MAY” and before the “A...
USPTO Is “LEFT RIGHT MIDDLE” Confusable with “LEFT CENTER RIGHT & Design” for Dice Games?
We keep in mind that when a mark, or a portion of a mark, is conceptually weak, it is entitled to a narrow scope of prot...