Deceptive marks always start off with two strikes against them.

Applicant applied for the mark BLAZING SILKS for a variety of clothing products.  Applicant also made clear that its products were not made from silk.   FIRST STRIKE:  Had Applicant’s products been made from silk, the USPTO would have deemed the word “silk” to be merely descriptive and would have required Applicant disclaim “silk” apart […]

PRACTICE POINTER: Applicant takes off his gloves in fight with Trademark Examiner…and wins.

The absence of hand wear in Applicant’s application combined with the differences in the respective marks convinced the TTAB to rule in favor of the Applicant. Applicant filed for the following HORIZEN-based mark for a variety of clothing items, footwear, headwear, and clothing accessories (“belts, flip flops, hats, jackets, pants, Polo shirts, sandals, shoes, shorts, […]

Third Party Registrations can be Used, or Not Used, by the TTAB

The In re Perlot, LLC case is interesting for a second reason….third party registrations. In a successfully argued “crowded field” scenario, the TTAB will use third party registrations to support a finding that the disputed term, common to the identified third party registrations, is the weak portion of the mark.   On the other hand, […]

Evidence of Actual Confusion can be a One Way Street

The Applicant filed for the following trademark for clothing: The application was denied based on a cited registration, also for clothing, for: Not surprisingly, the TTAB found both marks essentially equivalent to “MOUNTAIN LIFE.”  The design elements were given little weight with the word portions deemed dominant for the purpose of likelihood of confusion. This […]