2012

I’m Ollie, animal trademark correspondent.

Applicant filed for COCK SUCKER for rooster-shaped lollipops. Clearly generic. But applicant instead received a scandalous objection, affirmed by TTAB and yesterday, by the CAFC.

I’m told that there is a human sex act for which COCK SUCKER was once a secondary connotation. I say ‘once’ because it’s my understanding

“This examination guide addresses webpage specimens as displays associated with goods. Specifically, the guide describes the elements of an acceptable webpage display specimen, discusses the analytical framework for determining the acceptability of a webpage display, identifies the appropriate potential refusals, and provides examples.”

pto examination guide webpages
var docstoc_docid=”138803528″;var docstoc_title=”pto examination guide webpages”;var docstoc_urltitle=”pto examination

Justia summary:

Plaintiff, doing business as Paddle Tramps, appealed the district court’s order granting a partial preliminary injunction against his use of trademarks belonging to 32 Greek Organizations. The Greek Organizations cross-appealed. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury that to prove unclean hands, the

Justia.com summary:

Georgia-Pacific sued Four-U-Packaging, alleging that Four-U’s supply of off-brand paper towels for use in Georgia-Pacific paper-towel dispensers infringed on its trademarks. Four-U distributes paper and janitorial supplies; it does not manufacturer commercial paper systems. Four-U argued that the claims were barred by the ruling in a similar case brought by Georgia-Pacific in

Dyson claimed that its hand dryer was ‘greener’ than that of plaintiff’s. Plaintiff alleged that Dyson based that claim on a study where Dyson incorrectly claimed that while the Dyson dryer dries hands in 12 seconds, plaintiff’s took 20 seconds, when in fact it also takes 12 seconds.

xcelerator v dyson
var docstoc_docid=”137817219″;var docstoc_title=”xcelerator v

1-800-FLOWERS adopted its “Fruit Bouquet” marks in July 2011 and was making seemingly widespread use by December 2011. It filed applications and Edible Arrangements filed notices of opposition in February 2012. It apparently DID NOT send any communication to Flowers other than the Notices. Counsel for Flowers calls counsel for Edible Arrangements March 1 2012.