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...
TTAB
USPTO 
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 Is Applicant’s Three-Dimensional Product Packaging Configuration Inherently Distinctive? – 2
The evidence establishes a “reasonable predicate” for finding that Applicant’s Mark is not inherently distinctive, and t...
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 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 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...