<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Pattishall IP Blog</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.pattishall.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.pattishall.com</link>
	<description>blah blah</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:41:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
<cloud domain='blog.pattishall.com' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />

	<atom:link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="http://blog.pattishall.com/osd.xml" title="Pattishall IP Blog" />
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://blog.pattishall.com/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
		<title>What’s In A (Domain) Name?  What A Cybersquatter Calls A Web Site By Any Other Name Would Not Sell For A Million Dollars Or Provide A Platform For A Three-Year Old’s Artwork</title>
		<link>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/02/23/whats-in-a-domain-name-what-a-cybersquatter-calls-a-web-site-by-any-other-name-would-not-sell-for-a-million-dollars-or-provide-a-platform-for-a-three-year-olds-artwork/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/02/23/whats-in-a-domain-name-what-a-cybersquatter-calls-a-web-site-by-any-other-name-would-not-sell-for-a-million-dollars-or-provide-a-platform-for-a-three-year-olds-artwork/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:41:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard &#38; Geraldson LLP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cybersquatting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Phillip Barengolts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Preliminary Injunction]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pattishall.com/?p=1391</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by Phillip Barengolts, Trademark Attorney In “one [of] a series of domestic disputes between” Paul Bogoni and Vicdania Gomez, Gomez registered the domain names paulbogoni.org and paulbogoni.com without his authorization.[1]  She offered to sell the domain names for $1 million each and posted content on one of them related to certain of her and her [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=blog.pattishall.com&amp;blog=14106647&amp;post=1391&amp;subd=pattishall&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/02/23/whats-in-a-domain-name-what-a-cybersquatter-calls-a-web-site-by-any-other-name-would-not-sell-for-a-million-dollars-or-provide-a-platform-for-a-three-year-olds-artwork/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/f6942e38b9535efb49140710f026d815?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">pattishall</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://pattishall.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/pb_lowres.jpg?w=105" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">pb_lowres</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Defendant Hoist Manufacturer Awarded Attorney&#8217;s Fees in Trade Dress Case Secalt v. Wuxi Shenxi Construction Machinery</title>
		<link>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/02/09/defendant-hoist-manufacturer-awarded-attorneys-fees-in-trade-dress-case-secalt-v-wuxi-shenxi-construction-machinery/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/02/09/defendant-hoist-manufacturer-awarded-attorneys-fees-in-trade-dress-case-secalt-v-wuxi-shenxi-construction-machinery/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:30:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard &#38; Geraldson LLP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trade Dress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[9th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Attorney's Fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Janet A. Marvel]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pattishall.com/?p=1381</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By Janet Marvel, Trademark Attorney In Secalt S.A. v. Wuxi Shenxi Construction Machinery Co., Ltd., Nos. 10-17007 &#38; 11-15066, 2012 WL 373102 (9th Cir. Feb. 7, 2012), plaintiff, a manufacturer of traction hoists (typically used for commercial building and window washing), alleged that it owned trade dress rights in the following design: The Ninth Circuit [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=blog.pattishall.com&amp;blog=14106647&amp;post=1381&amp;subd=pattishall&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/02/09/defendant-hoist-manufacturer-awarded-attorneys-fees-in-trade-dress-case-secalt-v-wuxi-shenxi-construction-machinery/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/f6942e38b9535efb49140710f026d815?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">pattishall</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://pattishall.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/jam-traction-hoist.jpg?w=89" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">JAM-Traction Hoist</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Peter and the Wolf Leave the Public Domain – Supreme Court Holds Copyright Restoration Law is Constitutional</title>
		<link>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/01/18/peter-and-the-wolf-leave-the-public-domain-supreme-court-holds-copyright-restoration-law-is-constitutional/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/01/18/peter-and-the-wolf-leave-the-public-domain-supreme-court-holds-copyright-restoration-law-is-constitutional/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:59:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard &#38; Geraldson LLP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uli Widmaier]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pattishall.com/?p=1369</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by Uli Widmaier On January 18, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Golan v. Holder, No. 10-545, 565 U.S. &#8212; (2012), that a law bestowing U.S. copyright protection on certain foreign works that had previously been in the public domain is constitutional under both the Copyright Clause of the Constitution and the First Amendment.  [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=blog.pattishall.com&amp;blog=14106647&amp;post=1369&amp;subd=pattishall&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/01/18/peter-and-the-wolf-leave-the-public-domain-supreme-court-holds-copyright-restoration-law-is-constitutional/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/f6942e38b9535efb49140710f026d815?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">pattishall</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://pattishall.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/uw-lr.jpg?w=105" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">UW low res</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>ROLEX vs. ROLL-X:  TTAB Says that ROLL-X for X-ray Tables Does Not Dilute Famous ROLEX Mark</title>
		<link>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/01/17/rolex-vs-roll-x-ttab-says-that-roll-x-for-x-ray-tables-does-not-dilute-famous-rolex-mark/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/01/17/rolex-vs-roll-x-ttab-says-that-roll-x-for-x-ray-tables-does-not-dilute-famous-rolex-mark/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:10:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard &#38; Geraldson LLP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Dilution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TTAB]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Janet A. Marvel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Survey]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pattishall.com/?p=1362</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By Janet Marvel, Trademark Attorney In a precedential decision issued on December 5, 2011, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (&#8220;TTAB&#8221;) held that ROLEX was famous for watches under the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006, 15 USC 1125 (c) (&#8220;TDRA&#8221;), but the mark ROLL-X was not sufficiently similar to create a likelihood of dilution.  [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=blog.pattishall.com&amp;blog=14106647&amp;post=1362&amp;subd=pattishall&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/01/17/rolex-vs-roll-x-ttab-says-that-roll-x-for-x-ray-tables-does-not-dilute-famous-rolex-mark/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/f6942e38b9535efb49140710f026d815?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">pattishall</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>False Advertising Claim Over Statements In Billing Letter To Patients Not Sufficiently Pled Under Lanham Act</title>
		<link>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/01/13/false-advertising-claim-over-statements-in-billing-letter-to-patients-not-sufficiently-pled-under-lanham-act/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/01/13/false-advertising-claim-over-statements-in-billing-letter-to-patients-not-sufficiently-pled-under-lanham-act/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 20:24:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard &#38; Geraldson LLP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[False Advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Motion to Dismiss]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Phillip Barengolts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pattishall.com/?p=1347</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by Phillip Barengolts, Trademark Attorney Ameritox is “the nation&#8217;s leader in pain medication monitoring, offering urine drug testing services to help physicians assess medication adherence of patients on chronic opioid therapy.”  Millennium Laboratories is “a national, research-based medication monitoring company whose test offering, technology, customer support, educational resources and experts are specifically focused on clinicians [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=blog.pattishall.com&amp;blog=14106647&amp;post=1347&amp;subd=pattishall&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/01/13/false-advertising-claim-over-statements-in-billing-letter-to-patients-not-sufficiently-pled-under-lanham-act/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/f6942e38b9535efb49140710f026d815?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">pattishall</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://pattishall.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/pb_lowres.jpg?w=105" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">pb_lowres</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Using An Employee’s Personal Social Media Accounts Without Her Authorization To Market Employer May Create Liability Under Trademark And Electronic Privacy Laws</title>
		<link>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/01/05/using-an-employees-personal-social-media-accounts-without-her-authorization-to-market-employer-may-create-liability-under-trademark-and-electronic-privacy-laws/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/01/05/using-an-employees-personal-social-media-accounts-without-her-authorization-to-market-employer-may-create-liability-under-trademark-and-electronic-privacy-laws/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2012 16:55:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard &#38; Geraldson LLP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Right of Publicity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademark (General)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Networking]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pattishall.com/?p=1337</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by Phillip Barengolts, Trademark Attorney We’ve all been taught that our work e-mail and social media accounts are owned by our employers, so watch what you say and realize that you have no expectation of privacy in those accounts.  But what happens when an employee uses a personal account to promote her employer?  According to [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=blog.pattishall.com&amp;blog=14106647&amp;post=1337&amp;subd=pattishall&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/01/05/using-an-employees-personal-social-media-accounts-without-her-authorization-to-market-employer-may-create-liability-under-trademark-and-electronic-privacy-laws/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/f6942e38b9535efb49140710f026d815?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">pattishall</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://pattishall.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/pb_lowres.jpg?w=105" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">pb_lowres</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Stylish Baby Bottoms: Kimberly-Clark Wins Copyright Battle Over Diaper Jeans</title>
		<link>http://blog.pattishall.com/2011/12/27/stylish-baby-bottoms-kimberly-clark-wins-copyright-battle-over-diaper-jeans/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.pattishall.com/2011/12/27/stylish-baby-bottoms-kimberly-clark-wins-copyright-battle-over-diaper-jeans/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2011 18:23:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard &#38; Geraldson LLP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Substantial Similarity]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pattishall.com/?p=1324</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by Phillip Barengolts, Trademark Attorney As the father of two little boys, I’ve changed thousands of diapers in the last three years, but never diaper jeans.  Apparently, I’m missing out.  The owner of a copyright in certain diaper jeans sued Kimberly-Clark, which sold jean diapers.[1]  Kimberly-Clark moved to dismiss the claims because the alleged designs [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=blog.pattishall.com&amp;blog=14106647&amp;post=1324&amp;subd=pattishall&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.pattishall.com/2011/12/27/stylish-baby-bottoms-kimberly-clark-wins-copyright-battle-over-diaper-jeans/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/f6942e38b9535efb49140710f026d815?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">pattishall</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://pattishall.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/pb_lowres.jpg?w=105" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">pb_lowres</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://pattishall.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/diaper_jeans.jpg?w=150" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Diaper_Jeans</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Judge In New Mexico Issues Temporary Restraining Order Against Research In Motion To Prevent Use Of BBX Mark At Conference In Singapore</title>
		<link>http://blog.pattishall.com/2011/12/13/judge-in-new-mexico-issues-temporary-restraining-order-against-research-in-motion-to-prevent-use-of-bbx-mark-at-conference-in-singapore/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.pattishall.com/2011/12/13/judge-in-new-mexico-issues-temporary-restraining-order-against-research-in-motion-to-prevent-use-of-bbx-mark-at-conference-in-singapore/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:01:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard &#38; Geraldson LLP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[International]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Phillip Barengolts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Temporary Restraining Order]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pattishall.com/?p=1313</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by Phillip Barengolts, Trademark Attorney Research In Motion (RIM) planned to introduce its newest mobile platform at the BLACKBERRY developers&#8217; conference (DevCon) in Singapore.  It was going to call it BBX – until Basis International obtained a temporary restraining order against RIM’s use of the name the day before the conference opened.  See Basis Int’l [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=blog.pattishall.com&amp;blog=14106647&amp;post=1313&amp;subd=pattishall&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.pattishall.com/2011/12/13/judge-in-new-mexico-issues-temporary-restraining-order-against-research-in-motion-to-prevent-use-of-bbx-mark-at-conference-in-singapore/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/f6942e38b9535efb49140710f026d815?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">pattishall</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://pattishall.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/pb_lowres.jpg?w=105" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">pb_lowres</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>“Classic” Case of Trademark Infringement?  Top Tobacco and North Atlantic Operating Company Argue Whether CLASSIC CANADIAN and CLASSIC AMERICAN BLEND are Confusingly Similar</title>
		<link>http://blog.pattishall.com/2011/12/08/classic-case-of-trademark-infringement-top-tobacco-and-north-atlantic-operating-company-argue-whether-classic-canadian-and-classic-american-blend-are-confusingly-similar/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.pattishall.com/2011/12/08/classic-case-of-trademark-infringement-top-tobacco-and-north-atlantic-operating-company-argue-whether-classic-canadian-and-classic-american-blend-are-confusingly-similar/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2011 15:47:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard &#38; Geraldson LLP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[TTAB]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Janet A. Marvel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Likelihood of Confusion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pattishall.com/?p=1301</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By Janet Marvel, Trademark Attorney Top Tobacco, L.P. v. North Atlantic Operating Co., Inc. (TTAB Nov. 21, 2011) (available at http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91180231&#38;pty=OPP&#38;eno=14) shows the very fluid application of facts to law in trademark cases, and therefore, that reasonable minds can differ.  Top filed oppositions before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) to various trademark [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=blog.pattishall.com&amp;blog=14106647&amp;post=1301&amp;subd=pattishall&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.pattishall.com/2011/12/08/classic-case-of-trademark-infringement-top-tobacco-and-north-atlantic-operating-company-argue-whether-classic-canadian-and-classic-american-blend-are-confusingly-similar/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/f6942e38b9535efb49140710f026d815?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">pattishall</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;WE THE PEOPLE&#8221; Should Avoid Trashing Our Own Trademarks</title>
		<link>http://blog.pattishall.com/2011/12/06/we-the-people-should-avoid-trashing-our-own-trademarks/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.pattishall.com/2011/12/06/we-the-people-should-avoid-trashing-our-own-trademarks/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2011 21:52:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard &#38; Geraldson LLP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[TTAB]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Janet A. Marvel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pattishall.com/?p=1295</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By Janet Marvel, Trademark Attorney One of the most common reasons trademark applications are refused registration is that the applied-for marks are confusingly similar to other marks that are already registered.  There may be a great temptation to argue that the applicant&#8217;s and registrant&#8217;s marks are not confusing because they are among many similar marks.  [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=blog.pattishall.com&amp;blog=14106647&amp;post=1295&amp;subd=pattishall&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.pattishall.com/2011/12/06/we-the-people-should-avoid-trashing-our-own-trademarks/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/f6942e38b9535efb49140710f026d815?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">pattishall</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
