Luka Doncic is one of the brightest basketball stars in the world. However, the Slovenian superstar is fighting another battle outside the basketball court now. According to NBA journalist Marc Stein, Doncic has filed a petition with the United States Patent and Trademark Office to cancel the registration of the trademark
No registration for Mr. Conceal Carry, held Administrative Trademark Judge Christopher Larkin of the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board, joined by Judges Linda Kuczma and Thomas Shaw (Coca-Cola Co. v. Hoff); his proposed mark was forbidden by the federal trademark law banning commercial “dilution by blurring” of famous marks:
Last week, the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) rejected arguments by a South Carolina law firm in support of its application for trademark registration of its domain name. The ruling comes not long after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in USPTO v. Booking.com B.V., in which it held that certain terms that would otherwise not qualify for trademark protection can be registered if “.com” is added to the term. However, according to the TTAB, the term at issue now, “onlinetrademarkattorneys.com,” did not meet the requirements for trademark registration despite the addition of “.com.”
The United States Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the “TTAB”) recently published a precedential decision regarding the treatment of trademarks for wine and spirits and their potential for being “deceptively misdescriptive” pursuant to Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a). Section 2(a) has three provisions, all of which are relevant to the alcoholic beverage industry. In this new precedential decision, the TTAB held that “[t]erms that are not specifically place names, but which may have ‘geographical association,’ may provide bases for claims under the general deceptiveness provision of Section 2(a).”
On Friday, Twitter filed a notice of opposition before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board against applicant Puerto Rican company B. Fernandez & Hnos.’s application for the TWEET mark, asserting that it will be harmed if the applicant’s mark is registered.
On Wednesday, opposer Cisco Technology, Inc. filed a notice of opposition before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board against applicant Omcisco Technology INC.’s application for the OMCISCO mark, citing likelihood of consumer confusion and dilution of its famous mark.
TTAB Reading Room available: On July 31, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) deployed its new Reading Room, which replaces the former TTAB e-FOIA webpage. Use the Reading Room to search TTAB final decisions and precedential orders. You can search cases by date, issue, and other criteria. You can also search by language within the decision.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled yesterday that Australian Therapeutic Supplies Pty. Ltd. has “a real interest” in cancelling the registration for NAKED for condoms, owned by Naked TM, LLC.
A petition to cancel a registration of a mark, stating the grounds relied upon, may, upon payment of the prescribed fee, be filed as follows by any person who believes that he is or will be damaged, including as a result of a likelihood of dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment under section 1125(c) of this title, by the registration of a mark on the principal register established by this chapter, or under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905:
(1)Within five years from the date of the registration of the mark under this chapter.
(2)Within five years from the date of publication under section 1062(c) of this title of a mark registered under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905.
(3)At any time if the registered mark becomes the generic name for the goods or services, or a portion thereof, for which it is registered, or is functional, or has been abandoned, or its registration was obtained fraudulently or contrary to the provisions of section 1054 of this title or of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of section 1052 of this title for a registration under this chapter, or contrary to similar prohibitory provisions of such prior Acts for a registration under such Acts, or if the registered mark is being used by, or with the permission of, the registrant so as to misrepresent the source of the goods or services on or in connection with which the mark is used. If the registered mark becomes the generic name for less than all of the goods or services for which it is registered, a petition to cancel the registration for only those goods or services may be filed. A registered mark shall not be deemed to be the generic name of goods or services solely because such mark is also used as a name of or to identify a unique product or service. The primary significance of the registered mark to the relevant public rather than purchaser motivation shall be the test for determining whether the registered mark has become the generic name of goods or services on or in connection with which it has been used.
(4)At any time if the mark is registered under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, and has not been published under the provisions of subsection (c) of section 1062 of this title.
(5)At any time in the case of a certification mark on the ground that the registrant (A) does not control, or is not able legitimately to exercise control over, the use of such mark, or (B) engages in the production or marketing of any goods or services to which the certification mark is applied, or (C) permits the use of the certification mark for purposes other than to certify, or (D) discriminately refuses to certify or to continue to certify the goods or services of any person who maintains the standards or conditions which such mark certifies:
Provided, That the Federal Trade Commission may apply to cancel on the grounds specified in paragraphs (3) and (5) of this section any mark registered on the principal register established by this chapter, and the prescribed fee shall not be required. Nothing in paragraph (5) shall be deemed to prohibit the registrant from using its certification mark in advertising or promoting recognition of the certification program or of the goods or services meeting the certification standards of the registrant. Such uses of the certification mark shall not be grounds for cancellation under paragraph (5), so long as the registrant does not itself produce, manufacture, or sell any of the certified goods or services to which its identical certification mark is applied.
There are a number of famous colors that are trademark-protected – such as the color brown, which is registered by UPS, and the color “robin egg blue”, which is registered by Tiffany
A San Diego biotechnology company has been refused a trademark registration for ‘Sequencing by Binding’ on the grounds that it is too descriptive. Omniome, which develops DNA sequencing tools, filed for the mark in 2017 but had its application refused by an examining attorney at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In a precedential decision, issued on Monday, January 6, the USPTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) upheld the original decision, concluding that ‘Sequencing by Binding’ was descriptive of the claimed goods and services.
