USPTO Is Applicant’s Three-Dimensional Product Packaging Configuration Inherently Distinctive? – 1
We generally consider the following factors to determine whether an applicant’s product packaging is inherently distinct...
USPTO
USPTO 
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 TTAB Rejects Flimsy Consent Agreement – 1
The Federal Circuit has provided helpful guidance in determining the probative value of a consent agreement in the form ...
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...
USPTO Is “TAC-O” Merely Descriptive of Food Seasonings and Cooking-Related Services?
Applicant contends that use of a hyphen in “TAC-O” changes the “O” into an interjection or exclamation, creating a doubl...
USPTO Is KARMA KRACKERS for Crackers Confusable with KARMA for Nuts?
The words KARMA KRACKERS are featured prominently in the center of the mark. Applicant’s composite mark emphasizes the w...
USPTO Establishing entitlement to a statutory cause of action for opposition claims
Demonstrating a real interest in opposing registration of a mark satisfies the zone of-interests requirement, and demons...
USPTO Weakness of “BNB” Brings Cancellation Denial
An online association based on proximity is not the same as a trademark inquiry as to the perception of the relevant pub...