Practitioners in registered-rights jurisdictions, also known as pretty much every trademark lawyer in the world other than the US ones and a few other use-based fans, are encouraged to ‘over-file’ – to identify way more goods/services and way more classes than the applicant actually uses in relation to the mark. That might be the right
No Finding of Bad Faith in MyCadillac.com UDRP
Hmmm. GM failed to provide convincing evidence of bad faith. I think it would have easily won this case in 1999. GM v Chad Clegg.
2d Circuit: Fendi v Ashley Reed – Laches, Acquiescence, Damages
fendi reed second circuit
var docstoc_docid=”140838473″;var docstoc_title=”fendi reed second circuit”;var docstoc_urltitle=”fendi reed second circuit”;
I Have A Question For You About The Costs of International Filing
There are some trademark jurisdictions that (1) accept only single class applications; (2) require legalized documents; and (3) are not particularly large markets. As a result, the cost of obtaining trademark protection will be fairly high in relation to the anticipated revenue from that jurisdiction. Are there any heuristics out there with regard to the
Hi Di Ho: SDNY Interprets Section 10 of Lanham Act (No Assignment of pre-use ITU Without Transfer of On-going Business)
Section 10 of the Lanham Act prohibits assignment of an ITU application prior to the filing of proof of use, “except for an assignment to a successor to the business of the applicant, or portion thereof, to which the mark pertains, if that business is ongoing and existing.” This is intended to prevent trafficking in