"its own self contained power supply" AKA "batteries."

It takes a lot of dead pixies to make enough pixies dust for even one bulb. And dead pixies don't come cheap.

You should thank your lucky stars it isn't more expensive, you cheap bastard.

The number of factually incorrect statements in the previous post and this one (including the comments) is astounding. This is not complicated at all. It's all on the USPTO's website. The following is not conjecture. You just have to know where to find the information, read it, and know what the causes of action are.

I'll summarize for those with short attention spans:
(1) Lennon Murphy has a very broad registration for the the trademark LENNON that would cover any musical activities of the Lennon family;
(2) A cancellation proceeding before the TTAB, even when successful, has no impact on a person's ability to use that trademark. The owner just doesn't have exclusive rights anymore flowing from the registration;
(3) Yoko Ono is asserting both her registrations and her common law rights to LENNON and JOHN LENNON; and
(4) Everything at the USPTO demonstrates that Ono is telling the truth, and Ms. Murphy seriously misunderstands what is going on.

With more detail:
Lennon Murphy is the owner of trademark registration no. 2676604 for use with goods in class 009, including musical sound recordings, and for services in class 041, including "entertainment services in the nature of live performances by a musical group." This trademark was registered on 01/21/2003.

This registration allows Lennon Murphy to stop anyone else from using a similar trademark, when used in conjunction with goods or services, such that there is a likelihood of confusion in the consuming public between the source of the goods/services.

On its face, and ignoring the various defenses (e.g., priority of use), Lennon Murphy could sue members of the Lennon family for using "Lennon" for entertainment services.

What is startling is that in her declaration during the prosecution of the application, Lennon Murphy stated that her use of LENNON was from 1997 to 2002 for the listed goods and services "substantially exclusive." That is, she alone was using the trademark LENNON for musical performances. She also declared, "As a result of my extensive use, advertising and promotion of my mark LENNON for over five years, my mark has become distinctive of my services." In English, this means that, basically, when you hear the trademark LENNON, you think of her goods and services. See July 2002 filing.

Yoko Ono is the owner of two registrations (according to the cancellation) for the mark JOHN LENNON used with goods including paper products (Class 16) and eyewear (Class 09).

On January 18, 2008, Yoko One filed a petition to cancel Lennon Murphy's trademark for LENNON.

This is an important point: cancellation of a trademark has no affect on a party's ability to use the trademark. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board controls registrations in the USPTO. It does not control use or whether there is infringement, it doesn't issue injunctions and it doesn't levy damages. It just controls what is or isn't registered.

Therefore, based on what is available (i.e., no evidence that Ono filed in District Court for infringement), Lennon Murphy seriously doesn't understand what is going on, or worse. Moreover, Yoko Ono is attempting to stop Lennon Murphy from using LENNON exclusively for the listed goods and services.

The cancellation asserts, in addition to the registered trademarks, common law rights in LENNON and JOHN LENNON. This is where weldpond is completely wrong. The petition for cancellation states that:
"Petitioner is and has been for many years engaged [sic] the extensive publishing, marketing, advertising, and exploitation of the music and artwork of John Lennon. In connection therewith, petitioner has used in interstate commerce the trademarks LENNON and JOHN LENNON since long prior to registration's date of first use of the trademark LENNON."

Like any good attorney, all of Yoko Ono's rights were asserted, including the ones which have very little bearing (e.g., eyewear).

The grounds for cancellation are "dilution by blurring or tarnishment" (Comment: good luck with that, dilution is very difficult to prove even with recent changes in the law), fraud in obtaining the registration because she didn't disclose that it was her first name (Comment: They cite 15 U.S.C. 1052(e)(4), which applies to marks that are primarily merely surnames. This is for the examiner to determine. Whether or not it's her first name (not even her surname) is not a "but for" situation. Once again, good luck with that), and also that she wasn't using the mark in 1997 despite her declaration (Comment: if she wasn't, and I have no idea, then yeah, canceled).

Final comment, they should have just argued that there was a likelihood of confusion with Yoko Ono's common law rights to LENNON, which she has priority. They bury that in paragraph 10 under the "Dilution by Blurring or Tarnishment."