Date of visit: May Ask sharon about Zippy's Restaurant.
Contact - Orange Bang Inc.
Thank sharon Reviewed 9 June Best food here. Date of visit: June Ask DiannaS about Zippy's Restaurant.
Thank DiannaS Reviewed 4 June Ok when desperate. Date of visit: March Ask northshorecustomer about Zippy's Restaurant. Thank northshorecustomer. Reviewed 18 March Good service and average food.
- Juicy Whip, Inc. v. Orange Bang, Inc. - Case Brief for Law Students | Casebriefs.
- Orange Bang Telfair Ave Sylmar, CA Juice Bars - MapQuest?
- Law School Case Brief;
- US NAVY FACT FILE Battleships BB-14 USS Nebraska.
- Wissensmanagement: Werkzeuge für Praktiker (German Edition)?
- Witchs Cold: Donal (Witchs Curse Book 4).
Thank 06CES Travellers who viewed Zippy's Restaurant also viewed. Shige's Saimin Restaurant. Maui Mike's Fire-Roasted Chicken. Sunny Side Incorporated. Rise and Shine Cafe Hawaii.https://seocremsoden.tk
Wow Wow Lemonade Wahiawa. All restaurants in Wahiawa Been to Zippy's Restaurant? Share your experiences! Owners: What's your side of the story? Hotels travellers are raving about Aloha Wahiawa.
Read reviews. All hotels in Wahiawa 1. Restaurants 78 Things to Do Things to Do. Map updates are paused. Zoom in to see updated info. Updating Map TripAdvisor LLC is not responsible for content on external web sites. Taxes, fees not included for deals content. About Us Help Centre. New Zealand. Moreover, the proposed restriction as to Defendant's own channels of trade would limit them "primarily" to certain retail outlets, but did not expressly exclude trade channels that Plaintiff would be allowed.
In any case, even if the restrictions to trade channels were approved, the same consumers would likely encounter the involved products.
ole orange bang - Archives Speedhunters
The Board therefore dismissed Defendant's Section 18 counterclaim, and it proceeded with its determination of Plaintiff's claims based on Defendant's unrestricted identifications of goods. The Board noted, however, that even if Defendant's amendment to its own goods were entered, the outcome of Plaintiff's Section 2 d claims would not be altered. Priority was not an issue in the opposition as to the goods identified in Plaintiff's pleaded registration: "rice and milk-based beverages, namely horchata" and "non-alcoholic and non-carbonated fruit juice beverages.
The Board pointed out for the umpteenth time that when the involved marks are legally identical, a lesser degree of similarity between the goods is necessary to support a finding of likelihood of confusion.
The goods of both parties are dairy-based beverages. In fact, Defendant once sold packaged horchata and horchata concentrate, thus demonstrating that both horchata and yogurt-based beverages may emanate from a single source. Thus this du Pont factor favored Plaintiff.
There are no restrictions on trade channels in the pleaded registration or in Defendant's application or registrations, and so the Board must presume that these goods travel in all appropriate channels of trade for such goods. Defendant acknowledged that its yogurt-based beverages may be sold in some of the same outlets as Plaintiff's goods.
In addition, the goods may be sold to the same classes of consumers, including the general public. Therefore this du Pont factor favored Plaintiff. The involved goods are relatively inexpensive and maybe purchased on impulse. This du Pont factor also favored Plaintiff.
As to the strength of Plaintiff's mark, Defendant pointed to several consent agreements that Plaintiff had entered into. The Board noted, however, that the agreements concerned use of certain marks for coffee and coffee-related products, in contrast to the Defendant's products, which have a close relationship to those of Plaintiff.
The Board therefore found a likelihood of confusion and it sustained Plaintiff's opposition and granted its petition for partial cancellation.
Read comments and post your comment here. That is one complicated case.