Posts Tagged ‘merely descriptive’
In College of Traditional Chinese Medical Practitioners and Acupuncturists of British Columbia v. Council of Natural Medicine College of Canada (2009 FC 1110), the Federal Court (“FC”) granted the College of Traditional Chinese Medical Practitioners and Acupuncturists of British Columbia’s (“Chinese Traditional College”) motion for summary judgment. Registered and application marks of the Council of Natural Medicine College of Canada (“Natural Medicine College”) were expunged for being descriptive under section 12(1)(b) of the Trade-Marks Act (the “Act“), not distinctive under section 18(b), and invalid for registration and in fine under section 18(1). A permanent injunction was issued against Natural Medicine College on two grounds: its marks had previously been commercially usaged under section 10 and mislead the public under section 7(d) of the Act. Continue Reading
In The Cold War Museum, Inc. v. Cold War Air Museum, Inc. the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) reversed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (“TTAB”) decision (#92047391), which had cancelled the registration of the Cold War Museum’s service mark THE COLD WAR MUSEUM (Serial 76487216).
The TTAB had initially dealt with the issue of whether the registrant’s Cold War Museum’s service mark had acquired distinctiveness and was registrable pursuant to section 2(f) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f). However, the TTAB erred in cancelling the registration after it held registrant Cold War Museum had not proven the acquired distinctiveness of its mark. The CAFC, upon de novo review of the TTAB’s legal conclusions, reversed the decision. Continue Reading
In Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Kelly J. Holt (App. No. 91180119), the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) rejected the Opposer’s (Anheuser-Busch Inc.) arguments challanging the Applicant’s applied-for marks: “BEER 1″ (77063889), “ONE BEER, BEER 1″ (77065796) and “BEER 1 MMVII and design” (77090584). The TTAB held there was no basis to refuse the registration of the marks based on arguments primarily supported by expert testimony that the marks were merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptiveand and lacked secondary meaning, or that if the marks were registrable, elements should be disclaimed. Continue Reading
Subscription Options
