Patel & Almeida - Trademark Attorneys
 
FAQ'S
BLOG
CONTACT
 
Call Us: 800-973-7114

Top-Rated Trademark Attorneys
  Connect With Us
FaceBookTwitterGoogle Plus
 
 
 
  Home: Results
 

Results

We consistently surpass our clients' expectations by delivering exceptional results. We have an excellent track record of litigation victories, successfully overcoming office action refusals, and resolving infringement and domain name disputes. Here is what we have accomplished for some of our clients lately:

 


Our Recent Trademark Registrations

 

Trademark: AT Reg. No. 5119473 Registration Date: January 10, 2017

Trademark: Dailymax Reg. No. 5120063 Registration Date: January 10, 2017

Trademark: Well Nutrition Reg. No. 5119846 Registration Date: January 10, 2017

Sample of Our Litigation Victories

 
Sample of Our Litigation Victories:
Curtis v. Shinsachi Pharmaceuticals, U.S. Federal District Court, Case No. 2:14-cv-00591 Successfully obtained a monetary judgement including recovery of attorneys fees, cancellation of three federal registered trademarks, transfer of three domain names, and injunctive reilef. Read Decison
Pearson Facial Plastic Surgery, P.A. v. J.M. Pearson, M.D., Inc., U.S. Federal District Court, Case No. 2:13-cv-13-03440-SJO Sucessfully obtained a favorable settlement for our client in a trademark infringement matter.
Ryan Kang v. Bleu Coffee, U.S. Federal District Court Case No. 2:14-cv-03528-RSWL-PJW. Obtained a favorable settlement for our client in a copyright infringement matter.
Zoomania Games v Adictiz, S.A.S., U.S. Federal District Court, Case No. 1:14-CV-3768. Obtained a favorable settlement for our client in a trademark infringement matter.
Red Bull vs. Andale Energy TTAB Opposition No. 91210860 Successfully dismissed opposition on the grounds that the marks at issue were simply too dissimlar to cause a likelihood of confusion. Read More
Delta Air Lines, Inc. vs. Delta Van Lines, Inc. TTAB Opposition No. 91168554 Successfully defended our client's mark against an opposition filed by Delta Air Lines. Read More
Exxon Mobil Corporation vs. Jaya Medical Supplies, Inc., TTAB Opposition No. 91185716 Successfully defended our client's mark against an opposition filed by Exxon Mobile Corporation.
Choice First Distribution, LLC v. John L. Brown TTAB Opposition No. 92044116, Successfully cancelled the trademark CHRONIC 187 with a showing that the registration was void ab initio due to the registrant’s mere token use of its trademark. Read More
 


Sample of Our Successful Office Actions Responses

 
Refusals based on Likelihood of Confusion:
Successfully argued that no likelihood of confusion exists between GLUCOJOINT, Ser. No. 85537657, and GLUZOJOINT-F, Reg. No. 3788282 -- both for dietary supplements. Read More
Argued that no likelihood of confusion exists between FILTER PRO Ser. No. 86170150 for air and liquid filters for industrial installations, and FILTER PRO Reg. No. 2509352 for oil filters, air filters, and fuel filters. Read More
Argued sucessfully that no likelihood of confusion exists between EXCELLANCE Ser. No. 79138280 for perfumes and cosmetics, and EXCELLENCE Reg. No. 1116798 for hair coloring preparations owned by L'Oreal and between EXCELLENCE Reg. No. 3553048 for colognes, perfumes and cosmetics. Read More
Successfully argued that no likelihood of confusion exists between SPYRAL, Ser. No. 85479842, for "live performances by a musical band" and SPYRALI, Reg. No. 3627046, for "organization of exhibitions for cultural or entertainment purposes." Read More
Successfully argued that no likelihood of confusion exists between AZBOOKS, Ser. No. 85514623, and A-to-Z MYSTERIES, Reg. No. 2235339 -- both for "books". Read More
Successfully argued that no likelihood of confusion exists between CSS CORREA CLAIMS SERVICE, Ser. No. 85335538, and CSS COASTAL CLAIMS SERVICES, Reg. No. 3208433, and CSS, Reg. No. 3037532 -- all for insurance-related services. Read More
Successfully argued that no likelihood of confusion exists between ELECTBENEFITS, Ser. No. 86351419, and SELECTBENEFIT Reg. No. 1722413 both for financial services. Read More
 


 
Refusals based on Descriptiveness:
Successfully argued that COURSE ASSIGN, Ser. No. 85608396 is not "merely descriptive" for on-line software which allows students and teachers to correspond and discuss homework assignments because the "COURSEASSIGN" services do not literally "assign courses", and COURSEASSIGN is a "coined term" with a unique, non-descriptive meaning. Read More
Successfully argued that a mark comprised of Chinese characters which transliterates and translates into the English CLASSIC BLUE COLOR Ser. No. 79108134 is not "merely descriptive" for an alcoholic spirit because, although the product packaging for the beverage was blue, the liquid itself was not blue; and alcoholic beverage makers commonly advertise their products using color themes in a non-descriptive fashion, and without referring to the actual color of the beverage. Read More
Successfully argued that the mark XLBRAKE, Ser. No. 85351126 is not "merely descriptive" for "extra-large" sized auto brakes because "XL" refers to "acceleration", not the size of the brakes; and because auto brakes are not normally sold in "extra-large" size. Read More
 


Sample of Our Successful UDRP Domain Dispute Proceedings


 
Sample of Our Successful Domain Dispute Cases
Nicole Marrow of New York v. V. C. of Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Forced the transfer of the domain (nicolecocoaustin.net) which was registered in bad faith. Read More

Sóciéte des Technologies de l'Aluminium du Saguena Inc. v. Success Inc., Case No. D2008-0268 (WIPO) . Prevailed against a UDRP complainant before the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center regarding the domain name www.stas.com. Read More

Groovr, Inc. v. Active Interactive, Inc., FA 0710001103425 (Nat. Arb. Forum). Successfully defended against a UDRP complaint filed with the National Arbitration Forum seeking the involuntary transfer of the domain name www.gruvr.com, by negating the complainant's claim of prior trademark rights. Read More
Forced the transfer of the domain name costamartravel.com registered in bad faith through ICANN proceedings conducted via the World Intellectual Property Organization. Read More
 


 
Trademark Insider Award
Top Rated U.S. Firm
We are one of the nation's top filers and have been rated by Trademark Insider® to be among the top 25 U.S. law firms.

Since 1999
For over 15 years, Patel & Almeida has been the trusted leader in protecting the intellectual property of our clients.

Free Consultation
Call us at 818-380-1900
our use our online form to receive a free consultation.
Request Consultation



Services
Trademarks
Domain Disputes
Copyrights
California Registered Agent

Learn More
Trademark Basics
Copyright Basics
Patent Basics
Patent FAQ's

Support
Contact
Our Team


  Connect With Us:
  FaceBookTwitterGoogle Plus
 



Verisign
  Copyright 1999 - 2015 Patel & Almeida, P.C. All Rights Reserved

Privacy Policy | Legal | Disclaimer | Site Map