I am beaming with pride that John Welch, over at the TTABlog asked me to guest blog on the TTAB’s latest affirmance of a 2(a) refusal. My discussion of the case is here.
I am beaming with pride that John Welch, over at the TTABlog asked me to guest blog on the TTAB’s latest affirmance of a 2(a) refusal. My discussion of the case is here.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 19th, 2007 at 5:49 am and is filed under 2(a), trademark. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
By RSS Feed
Sexual Intelligence
Underdog Blog
Meeting the Sin Laws
TTABlog
Seattle Trademark Lawyer
Trademark Blog
Media Law
Law of the Land
Dillsnap Cogitations
Above the Law
Adams Drafting
Spam Notes
Las Vegas Trademark Attorney
WindyPundit
Nobody's Business
Simple Justice
Build a Solo Practice
New York Personal Injury Law Blog
Pope Hat
Tatiana Von Tauber
Citizen Media Project
Tech & Marketing Blog
What About Clients?
A Public Defender
Defending People
Likelihood of Confusion
ContiFazz
Defend My Domain
Dispatches From the Culture Wars
Siouxsie Law
Mockler Family Law
Crime & Federalism
The Spearhead
Not Guilty
In Mala Fide
Shit!!! Planet!!!
Theme: Contempt by Vault9.
Blog at WordPress.com.
Magna cum laude….spot on.
Just cause for pride. However, you have to choose your battles, and this isn’t the one. Apart from any considerations as to “scandalousness,” this phrase is unregistrable as a trademark because it is merely ornamental and does not serve a trademark purpose. That is, it’s merely a clever saying that adorns the shirts, not a “brand” that indicates the source of the shirts. The Examiner should have refused on the “,erely ornamental” basis rather than the 2(a) “scandalous” basis, and thereby avoided the wrath of Messrs Welch and Randazza.