Intellectual Property Forum The Intellectual Property Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New registrations are now permitted.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - JSonnabend

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... 228
181
Trademark Forum / Re: a really simple trademark question
« on: 05-25-11 at 12:09 pm »
First, the test under section 2(d) is likelihood of confusion, not identity of marks.  Your analysis therefore falls a bit short (although in the end your conclusions may hold true).

Second, the "IC #" is besides the point.  If you don't have use under section 1(a), your application will be refused (subject to amendment to ITU status and later submission of a statement of use).  My concern is larger, though.  I fear that you may not be using the "mark" as a mark at all.

Finally, there is no refund.  The "system" does not check anything other than making sure you have the proper fields filled-out.  The examiner does the substantive review.  TEAS expressly warns you that your application may be refused and there are no refunds if it is.

- Jeff

182
Trademark Forum / Re: a really simple trademark question
« on: 05-25-11 at 09:25 am »
An examiner will not ask what you're trying to do.  The examiner will assume you are trying to register a trademark.  The examiner will review the application and then issue a refusal if the application has errors or if there are conflicting prior registrations.

- Jeff

183
Trademark Forum / Re: Question regarding retailer liability
« on: 05-25-11 at 07:47 am »
Yak, that may be, but how does that impact the "printer's" liability for trademark infringement?

- Jeff

184
Trademark Forum / Re: a really simple trademark question
« on: 05-25-11 at 07:19 am »
Concerned, it sounds to me like you didn't file a proper trademark application.  Only time will tell, but I bet you run into a use in commerce problem.  What was the ID you ultimately settled on?

- Jeff

185
Trademark Forum / Re: consent letter for trademark
« on: 05-25-11 at 07:16 am »
Kumar, your advice is off the mark.  The letter of consent should clearly define the two parties' respective uses of their marks and further state that the parties will cooperate to address any potential confusion that actually arises.

- Jeff

186
Trademark Forum / Re: Question regarding retailer liability
« on: 05-25-11 at 07:13 am »
John's advice is good for as far as it goes.  Unfortunately, it doesn't go very far.

In order to be deemed an infringer, you have to be "using" a mark that is confusingly similar to someone else's senior mark.  Simply applying a logo to a mug, etc, might very well fall into that category, but including a picture of someone wearing clothing having a visible logo (for example) does not.

Regarding the innocent infringer (printer) exception of 1114(2)(a), case law varies from circuit to circuit regarding what constitutes a printer and what constitutes innocent.  While you may be deemed a printer, I believe, you might not be deemed innocent if you have reason to believe the use of the logo is not authorized.

- Jeff

187
Trademark Forum / Re: Displaying Team Logos
« on: 05-25-11 at 07:03 am »
Use of logos is by and large treated differently from use of names in nominative use analyses.  So while I agree with Kaitlin's post to a large degree, I disagree that use of the logo is akin to use of the name.

OMG IP's analysis isn't really an analysis at all, as it completely ignores the nominative use aspect of the question.

- Jeff

188
It is not wise to post actual trademarks here when you are involved in a dispute.  There is nothing to prevent the other side of your dispute from finding and reading the thread.  I advise editing your post to remove references to the marks at issue.

- Jeff

189
Trademark Forum / Re: Using Trademark names on my Website
« on: 04-29-11 at 05:33 am »
Search the forum for "nominative use".  You will find relevant discussion on the topic.  Feel free to post any follow up comments questions here.

- Jeff

190
Trademark Forum / Re: unregistered trademark protection?
« on: 04-29-11 at 05:29 am »
First of all, your former employee did not "trademark" anything.  He might have sought or even received registration for the mark, but he did not "trademark" it.

That distinction is important because the trademark office does not award trademarks, it merely registers existing trademark rights.  Those trademark rights, in turn, are first established through use.  First to use, first to own. 

Thus, if you have been using the mark for some time prior to this person's apparent registration, you have senior rights (which may be of limited or far-reaching geographic scope depending on your use), and you may be able to cancel his registration.

You used an attorney before.  I suggest you speak to one again now, and not delay in doing so.

- Jeff

191
If you want to make sure no one registers the mark first, then yes, you should file an ITU.  Of course, if there is a previous registration and/or pending application for a conflicting mark, you may be foreclosed from registration.  Also, registration does not necessarily mean you are free to use the mark.

- Jeff

192
Trademark Forum / Re: Footwear Trademark Infringment!
« on: 04-28-11 at 02:43 pm »
Long story short is, if there is a likelihood of confusion between your proposed mark and the pre-existing marks, then your use will infringe and registration will be refused.  The two principal factors in the likelihood of confusion analysis, among others, are the similarity of the marks and the similarity of the goods/services each covers.

- Jeff

193
Trademark Forum / Re: Footwear Trademark Infringment!
« on: 04-28-11 at 10:44 am »
Maybe.

No, really, the answer is maybe.  Search the forum for "likelihood of confusion" and you will find many, many threads discussing exactly the question you asked.  If you have questions after that, by all means, please post them back here.

- Jeff

194
Assuming your mark will be used in connection with a product, as opposed to a service, you will have to have a bona fide distribution of at least one of the products in interstate commerce, typically a shipment across state lines.

- Jeff

195
Trademark Forum / Re: Trademark use on T-shirts
« on: 04-27-11 at 08:04 am »
What do you mean by "commercial use"?

- Jeff

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... 228


Footer

www.intelproplaw.com

Terms of Use
Feel free to contact us:
Sorry, spam is killing us.

iKnight Technologies Inc.

www.intelproplaw.com

Page created in 0.161 seconds with 22 queries.