Case law in the USA, not in the entire world. As I recall, the law varies a bit
from country to country, no?
--MM
Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
> I would argue that the case law for likelihood of confusion analysis is
> completely fleshed out. An entry level examiner at the US Patent and
> Trademark Office is competent to render a preliminary opinion when
> comparing two marks and their intended goods and services. Absence of
> precedent is certainly not an issue if the DN steps forward and indicates
> the area of intended use (as every tradmeark applicant in the world has to do).
>
> __________________________________________________
> To receive the digest version instead, send a
> blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ___END____________________________________________
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
