Select Country

Select a country to view information on local trademark law


Countries
A-E  F-J  K-O  P-T  U-Z

Multinational Agreements
EUIPO  WIPO
AIPO/OAPI  ARIPO
Enter Client Voucher:  info

Get Listed

Promote your expertise to IP professionals worldwide.
read more

Subscribe to Free Newsletter

To keep updated on the latest amendments to international trademark laws click here

Articles

Print this page
Nov 09, 2016
Timothy J. Kelly, Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto, USA
Kathryn Easterling, Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto, USA
First published on International Law Office (www.internationallawoffice.com)

Mini Melts, Inc. v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC


Timothy J. Kelly, Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto, USA, Kathryn Easterling, Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto, USA, First published on International Law Office (www.internationallawoffice.com)The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board or TTAB) finally concluded a nine-year trademark battle between opposer Mini Melts, Inc. (“MMI”) and applicant Reckitt Benckiser LLC (“RB”), refusing RB’s mark on the basis of descriptiveness. RB sought to register the marks MINIMELTS and MINI-MELTS, in standard characters, for “pharmaceutical preparations for use as an expectorant” in International Class 5. MMI opposed, alleging likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act in light of MMI’s previously registered MINI MELTS mark for “ice cream.” As a secondary argument, MMI alleged that RB’s marks were merely descriptive under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act. RB countered, denying the allegations of likely confusion, and affirmatively alleging that its marks had acquired distinctiveness under Lanham Act Section 2(f). The original notice of opposition by MMI was filed over nine years ago, with intervening district court proceedings resulting in suspension of the opposition for over four years. In the district court, RB was successful in overcoming MMI’s challenge to  read more