EUIPO Non-hypothetical future risk of undue profit from the reputation of the ‘GAP’ brand – 1
Visually and aurally, the contested sign incorporates the sole element constituting the earlier mark. This element is di...
商標の類否
EUIPO 
EUIPO The marks coincide in the element ‘GRO*GREEN’
In the present case, the marks coincide in the element ‘GRO*GREEN’, which is the dominant and most distinctive element o...
USPTO Is ELEMENTAL BEAUTY for Skincare Products Confusable with BEAUTY IS ELEMENTAL for Nutritional Supplements? – 1
Here, both marks contain the identical words ELEMENTAL and BEAUTY, with Applicant’s mark ELEMENTAL BEAUTY transposing th...
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...
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...
EUIPO The comparison of the signs (OHIM v Shaker, C‑334/05 P) – 1
The global assessment of the likelihood of confusion must, so far as concerns the visual, phonetic or conceptual similar...
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 ...