§

12 Cited authorities

  1. In re Int'l Flavors Fragrances Inc.

    183 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 60 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Noting that "[t]he federal registration of a trademark does not create an exclusive property right in the mark."

  2. In re Bayer

    488 F.3d 960 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 41 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Endorsing the use of internet evidence as admissible and competent evidence for evaluating a trademark

  3. In re Nett Designs, Inc.

    236 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 28 times
    Finding that prior registrations of marks including the term ULTIMATE "do not conclusively rebut the Board's finding that ULTIMATE is descriptive in the context of this mark"

  4. Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo

    284 F. Supp. 2d 96 (D.D.C. 2003)   Cited 20 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Finding economic prejudice if a trademark registration were cancelled where a defendant had invested money in marketing and brand development

  5. In re Shinnecock Smoke Shop

    571 F.3d 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 2009-1100. July 1, 2009. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied August 28, 2009. Scott Michael Moore, Moore International Law Offices, of New York, NY, argued for appellant. Thomas V. Shaw, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, VA, argued for the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. With him on the brief were Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor, and Shannon M. Hansen, Associate Solicitor. Of counsel was Christina J

  6. West Florida Seafood, Inc. v. Jet Restaurants

    31 F.3d 1122 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 21 times
    Recognizing that separate corporate, business and personal entities that operate as a single entity in the eyes of the consuming public may be treated as such for trademark purposes

  7. In re Boulevard Entertainment, Inc.

    334 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 10 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Affirming refusal to register JACK–OFF marks

  8. In re Mavety Media Group Ltd.

    33 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 13 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that PTO failed to prove that term was scandalous and thus unregistrable; PTO relied on dictionary definition of disputed term, but dictionary provided alternative definitions; proof failed because of "the absence of evidence as to which of these definitions the substantial composite [of consumers] would choose"

  9. In re McGinley

    660 F.2d 481 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 14 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Affirming refusal to register mark depicting genitalia

  10. Application of Standard Elektrik

    371 F.2d 870 (C.C.P.A. 1967)   Cited 6 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7709. February 9, 1967. C. Cornell Remsen, Jr., New York City (Donald J. Goodell, New York City, of counsel), for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (George C. Roeming, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. SMITH, Judge. Appellant appeals from the decision of the Trademark

  11. Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,616 times   275 Legal Analyses
    Granting authority to refuse registration to a trademark that so resembles a registered mark "as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive"