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...
異議申立
EUIPO 
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 Relevant public — degree of attention
The average consumer of the category of products concerned is deemed to be reasonably well informed and reasonably obser...
USPTO Prove Distinctiveness of its Common Law Mark – 2
Factors to be considered in determining whether acquired distinctiveness has been established include whether there is a...
USPTO Prove Distinctiveness of its Common Law Mark – 1
In sum, we find that Opposer’s evidence of use of PCS prior to Applicant’s December 13, 2018, constructive date of first...
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 DANKEES Confusable with YANKEES for Clothing
Applicant’s mark is DANKEES and Opposer’s mark is YANKEES. Applicant’s mark is in standard character format, not limited...
USPTO Disney’s Opposition to OSWALD THE RABBIT for Movie and Play Production Due to Lack of Bona Fide Intent
In short, we cannot conclude that Applicant’s intent to use the applied-for mark as an indicator of source for the parti...
USPTO Cognac Institute’s Opposition to COLOGNE & COGNAC ENTERTAINMENT
The stacked alliterative phrase, COLOGNE & COGNAC, appears prominently above the smaller and merely descriptive or gener...