The major advantage to Xoom is price. The service claims to offer lower prices on international money transfers than Western Union and MoneyGram. Xoom makes its money from transaction fees, as well as the foreign exchange fees charged when the money is received in a currency other than U. Xoom also offers a money-back guarantee.
If for any reason your money is not received by your recipient, it will refund your transaction in full. So what about the disadvantages? Some critics complain that Xoom often plays it too safe, resulting in extra hassle for the customer and lengthy processing times.
Of course, taking these additional measures and refusing to accept cash as a funding source are good ways to avoid money-laundering schemes and terrorism financing. Xoom itself was the victim of a massive fraud scheme. In the time since, however, Xoom was acquired by PayPal, improving its security, and it has not encountered any such fraudulent activities since then.
For customers looking to send money to friends and family across the globe, Xoom can be an affordable alternative to other international money transfer services. The company also assures customer safety and offers a money-back guarantee. Securities and Exchange Commission. Consumer Affairs.
Company Profiles. Lifestyle Advice. Your Privacy Rights. To change or withdraw your consent choices for Investopedia. At any time, you can update your settings through the "EU Privacy" link at the bottom of any page.
These choices will be signaled globally to our partners and will not affect browsing data. We and our partners process data to: Actively scan device characteristics for identification.
I Accept Show Purposes. The Board discussed in detail the the testimony and evidence and found "no direct evidence of an intent to deceive the USPTO, and no clear and convincing evidence to warrant the inference of an intent to deceive.
King, who testified that "at all relevant times he believed, and still believes, the truth of the statements about ongoing use of the marks in the pleaded registrations for all the listed services," and who explained the basis for those beliefs. The Board dismissed the claim of fraud: "Considering the testimony and evidence in its entirety, we do not find that it supports an inference of deceptive intent regarding Opposer's use of its marks.
Likelihood of Confusion: Since the services of the parties overlap in part, the overlapping services are presumed to travel in the same, customary channels of trade to the same consumers. The Board found the mark XOOM to be inherently distinctive and it concluded, based on sales figures and contextual evidence, that the XOOM mark enjoys widespread recognition among its customers the general public. ZT's third-party registration evidence, purportedly showing the weakness of the word "zoom," was ineffective since there was no evidence regarding extent of use of those marks and since most of the registrations covered unrelated goods and services.
As to the marks, ZT pointed to the testimony that many of PayPal's customers do not speak English and may not pronounce "xoom" as "zoom. The Board acknowledged that the word PAY at the trailing end of ZT's mark somewhat distinguishes the marks visually and aurally. However, it concluded that the marks are more similar than dissimilar, and so the first DuPont factor favored PayPal.
ZT pointed to the lack of evidence of actual confusion during a six-year period of concurrent use, but because of the lack of evidence regarding the extent of use of the ZOOMPAY mark, the Board found this factor to be neutral. Read comments and post your comment here. TTABlogger comment: The Board has said that you don't need a "smoking gun" to prove fraud, but you do need clear and convincing evidence.
The TTABlog. The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter.
Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. All Rights Reserved. Password Passwords are Case Sensitive. Forgot your password? Free, unlimited access to more than half a million articles one-article limit removed from the diverse perspectives of 5, leading law, accountancy and advisory firms. We need this to enable us to match you with other users from the same organisation.
It is also part of the information that we share to our content providers "Contributors" who contribute Content for free for your use. Learn More Accept. Intellectual Property. Consumer Protection. Government Contracts.
Intellectual Property. International Arbitration. International Trade. Law In-Depth. Legal Ethics. Legal Industry. Life Sciences. Native American. New Jersey. New York. Private Equity. Product Liability. Project Finance. Public Policy. Real Estate. White Collar. No Thanks Sign up now.
0コメント