<?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>Fri, 11 May 2012 17:36:46 +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>Cuervo Misses the Mark in Sixth Circuit Appeal Involving Seals on Liquor Bottles</title>
		<link>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/05/11/cuervo-misses-the-mark-in-sixth-circuit-appeal-involving-seals-of-liquor-bottles/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/05/11/cuervo-misses-the-mark-in-sixth-circuit-appeal-involving-seals-of-liquor-bottles/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 17:14:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard &#38; Geraldson LLP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trade Dress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jeffrey A. Wakolbinger]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sixth Circuit]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pattishall.com/?p=1489</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by Jeffrey A. Wakolbinger, Trademark Attorney By U.S. regulation, a bottle labeled as “bourbon” must contain contents that were made in the United States according to certain procedures.  And by order of the Sixth Circuit, a bottle topped with a red, dripping-wax seal, must be made by Maker’s Mark.  See Maker’s Mark v. Diageo N. [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=blog.pattishall.com&#038;blog=14106647&#038;post=1489&#038;subd=pattishall&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/05/11/cuervo-misses-the-mark-in-sixth-circuit-appeal-involving-seals-of-liquor-bottles/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/2012/03/jaw-lr.jpg?w=105" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">JAW-LR</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://pattishall.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/makersmark.jpg?w=150" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">MakersMark</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hey Ya!  District Court Dismisses Copyright Lawsuit Against André 3000&#8242;s &#8220;Class of 3000&#8243;</title>
		<link>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/04/27/hey-ya-district-court-dismisses-copyright-lawsuit-against-andre-3000s-class-of-3000/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/04/27/hey-ya-district-court-dismisses-copyright-lawsuit-against-andre-3000s-class-of-3000/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 20:40:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard &#38; Geraldson LLP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Motion to Dismiss]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Seth I. Appel]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pattishall.com/?p=1482</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by Seth I. Appel, Trademark Attorney In 1997, Timothy McGee pitched an animated TV series, &#8220;The Music Factory of the 90&#8242;s,&#8221; to The Cartoon Network.  McGee&#8217;s show, set in Atlanta, centered on Tony &#8220;The Play Maker&#8221; Rich, a wealthy corporate attorney who leaves his law firm to become a music producer.  The show would feature [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=blog.pattishall.com&#038;blog=14106647&#038;post=1482&#038;subd=pattishall&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/04/27/hey-ya-district-court-dismisses-copyright-lawsuit-against-andre-3000s-class-of-3000/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/2012/03/sia-lr.jpg?w=100" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">SIA-LR</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Mud Thickens: The Federal Circuit Issues Its Latest Decision on Utilitarian Functionality, Refusing Registration to Becton Dickinson&#8217;s Blood Collection Tube Cap</title>
		<link>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/04/16/the-mud-thickens-the-federal-circuit-issues-its-latest-decision-on-utilitarian-functionality-refusing-registration-to-becton-dickinsons-blood-collection-tube-cap/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/04/16/the-mud-thickens-the-federal-circuit-issues-its-latest-decision-on-utilitarian-functionality-refusing-registration-to-becton-dickinsons-blood-collection-tube-cap/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:09:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard &#38; Geraldson LLP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[TM Registration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Functionality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Janet A. Marvel]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pattishall.com/?p=1471</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By Janet Marvel, Trademark Attorney On April 12, 2012, the Federal Circuit waded into the increasingly muddy waters of utilitarian functionality law with its decision in In re Becton, Dickinson and Co., 2012 WL 1216281.  The Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB&#8217;s decision that Becton Dickinson&#8217;s (&#8220;BD&#8221;) closure cap for blood collection tubes (shown below) was functional [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=blog.pattishall.com&#038;blog=14106647&#038;post=1471&#038;subd=pattishall&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/04/16/the-mud-thickens-the-federal-circuit-issues-its-latest-decision-on-utilitarian-functionality-refusing-registration-to-becton-dickinsons-blood-collection-tube-cap/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/2012/04/jam-becton.jpg" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">JAM Becton</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fourth Circuit Reverses Grant Of Summary Judgment In Rosetta Stone v. Google: Google&#8217;s AdWords Program To Be Put On Trial</title>
		<link>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/04/11/fourth-circuit-reverses-grant-of-summary-judgment-in-rosetta-stone-v-google-googles-adwords-program-to-be-put-on-trial/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/04/11/fourth-circuit-reverses-grant-of-summary-judgment-in-rosetta-stone-v-google-googles-adwords-program-to-be-put-on-trial/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2012 23:07:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard &#38; Geraldson LLP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademark (General)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fourth Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Keywords]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uli Widmaier]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pattishall.com/?p=1458</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by Uli Widmaier, Trademark Attorney I.   Summary Rosetta Stone, a leading language-learning software producer, sued Google for trademark infringement and dilution based on Google&#8217;s sale of Rosetta Stone&#8217;s marks as keywords.  In 2010, the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia entered summary judgment against Rosetta Stone&#8217;s trademark claims (direct, contributory, and vicarious trademark [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=blog.pattishall.com&#038;blog=14106647&#038;post=1458&#038;subd=pattishall&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/04/11/fourth-circuit-reverses-grant-of-summary-judgment-in-rosetta-stone-v-google-googles-adwords-program-to-be-put-on-trial/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>Court Deals Blow to Hasbro in Dispute Involving Transformers Trademark</title>
		<link>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/03/28/court-deals-blow-to-hasbro-in-dispute-involving-transformers-trademark/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/03/28/court-deals-blow-to-hasbro-in-dispute-involving-transformers-trademark/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:34:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard &#38; Geraldson LLP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademark (General)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jeffrey A. Wakolbinger]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Preliminary Injunction]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pattishall.com/?p=1449</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by Jeffrey A. Wakolbinger, Trademark Attorney The storyline developed to market the &#8220;Transformers&#8221; line of toy robots that transform into vehicles and other objects is probably familiar to any child of the &#8217;80s and certainly to anyone who contributed to the box-office success of the 2007 Transformers movie and its sequels.  It&#8217;s a battle between [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=blog.pattishall.com&#038;blog=14106647&#038;post=1449&#038;subd=pattishall&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/03/28/court-deals-blow-to-hasbro-in-dispute-involving-transformers-trademark/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/2012/03/jaw-lr.jpg?w=105" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">JAW-LR</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fourth Circuit Overturns Laches Defense Victory for Clear Channel</title>
		<link>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/03/27/fourth-circuit-overturns-laches-defense-victory-for-clear-channel/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/03/27/fourth-circuit-overturns-laches-defense-victory-for-clear-channel/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:17:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard &#38; Geraldson LLP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademark (General)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fourth Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Laches]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Phillip Barengolts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademark]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pattishall.com/?p=1439</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by Phillip Barengolts, Trademark Attorney Trademark owners have a duty to police their rights or risk erosion or even loss of those rights.  This duty does not extend to every known infringement, but alleged infringers often assert unaddressed third-party use of other infringing marks as a means of defeating a trademark infringement claim against them.  [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=blog.pattishall.com&#038;blog=14106647&#038;post=1439&#038;subd=pattishall&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/03/27/fourth-circuit-overturns-laches-defense-victory-for-clear-channel/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>Federal Circuit Rejects &#8220;Reasonable Manners&#8221; Test For Determining Scope of Standard Character Mark During Ex Parte Examination</title>
		<link>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/03/21/federal-circuit-rejects-reasonable-manners-test-for-determining-scope-of-standard-character-mark-during-ex-parte-examination/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/03/21/federal-circuit-rejects-reasonable-manners-test-for-determining-scope-of-standard-character-mark-during-ex-parte-examination/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2012 14:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard &#38; Geraldson LLP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[TM Registration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Seth I. Appel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademark Prosecution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pattishall.com/?p=1427</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By Seth Appel, Trademark Attorney Viterra Inc. applied to register XCEED in standard character form for &#8220;agricultural seed.&#8221;  The examining attorney refused registration, and the Board affirmed, based on likelihood of confusion with the following registered mark for &#8220;agricultural seeds.&#8221; On appeal to the Federal Circuit, Viterra conceded that the goods were the same, but [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=blog.pattishall.com&#038;blog=14106647&#038;post=1427&#038;subd=pattishall&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/03/21/federal-circuit-rejects-reasonable-manners-test-for-determining-scope-of-standard-character-mark-during-ex-parte-examination/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/2012/03/sia-lr.jpg?w=100" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">SIA-LR</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://pattishall.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/x-seed.jpg?w=150" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">X-Seed</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bare Trademark Rights? Naked Cowboy&#8217;s Infringement Action Against CBS Dismissed</title>
		<link>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/03/16/bare-trademark-rights-naked-cowboys-infringement-action-against-cbs-dismissed/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/03/16/bare-trademark-rights-naked-cowboys-infringement-action-against-cbs-dismissed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2012 19:11:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard &#38; Geraldson LLP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademark (General)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fair Use]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Janet A. Marvel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademark Infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TTAB]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pattishall.com/?p=1419</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By Janet Marvel, Trademark Attorney Robert John Burck has made a career as a New York street performer.  He is (arguably) famous under his alias, &#8220;The Naked Cowboy&#8221;, appearing with his guitar in Times Square, clad only in a hat, boots and briefs.  In Naked Cowboy v. CBS, 101 USPQ2d 1841 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2012), [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=blog.pattishall.com&#038;blog=14106647&#038;post=1419&#038;subd=pattishall&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/03/16/bare-trademark-rights-naked-cowboys-infringement-action-against-cbs-dismissed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</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>Sky Diving for Dollars: Ninth Circuit Upholds Jury&#8217;s $6 Million Award to Skydive Arizona for Defendants&#8217; Trademark Infringement, False Advertising, and Cybersquatting</title>
		<link>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/03/14/sky-diving-for-dollars-ninth-circuit-upholds-jurys-6-million-award-to-skydive-arizona-for-defendants-trademark-infringement-false-advertising-and-cybersquatting/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/03/14/sky-diving-for-dollars-ninth-circuit-upholds-jurys-6-million-award-to-skydive-arizona-for-defendants-trademark-infringement-false-advertising-and-cybersquatting/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:12:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard &#38; Geraldson LLP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademark (General)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[9th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[False Advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Phillip Barengolts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademark]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pattishall.com/?p=1406</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by Phillip Barengolts, Trademark Attorney Skydive Arizona sued a group of defendants, collectively called &#8220;Skyride&#8221; by the court, for trademark infringement, false advertising, and cybersquatting.  At trial, the jury awarded Skydive Arizona $1 million in actual damages for false advertising, $2.5 million in actual damages for trademark infringement, $2,500,004 in defendant&#8217;s profits from the trademark [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=blog.pattishall.com&#038;blog=14106647&#038;post=1406&#038;subd=pattishall&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/03/14/sky-diving-for-dollars-ninth-circuit-upholds-jurys-6-million-award-to-skydive-arizona-for-defendants-trademark-infringement-false-advertising-and-cybersquatting/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>Does CRACKBERRY Parody BLACKBERRY? TTAB Says &#8220;No&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/03/01/does-crackberry-parody-blackberry-ttab-says-no/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/03/01/does-crackberry-parody-blackberry-ttab-says-no/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2012 20:32:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard &#38; Geraldson LLP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TM Registration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Janet A. Marvel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TTAB]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pattishall.com/?p=1399</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By Janet Marvel, Trademark Attorney On February 27, 2012, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board issued its precedential opinion in Research in Motion Limited v. Defining Presence Marketing Group, Inc. and Axel Ltd. Co., Opposition No. 91181076,[1] refusing registration of CRACKBERRY because it is likely to be confused with and to dilute RIM&#8217;s famous BLACKBERRY mark.  [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=blog.pattishall.com&#038;blog=14106647&#038;post=1399&#038;subd=pattishall&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/03/01/does-crackberry-parody-blackberry-ttab-says-no/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>
