Accu-fit Clubfitting Inc.

6 Cited authorities

Application of Abcor Development Corp.
588 F.2d 811 (C.C.P.A. 1978) Cited 36 times 2 Legal Analyses
In Abcor, the question before the court was whether applicant's alleged mark (GASBADGE) was "merely descriptive" within the meaning of § 2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1).
University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co.
703 F.2d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1983) Cited 20 times 2 Legal Analyses
In University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 1376, 217 USPQ 505, 509 (Fed. Cir. 1983), the court added that section 2(a) embraces concepts of the right to privacy which may be violated even in the absence of likelihood of confusion.
Bose Corp. v. International Jensen Inc.
963 F.2d 1517 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
No. 91-1260. May 13, 1992. Charles Hieken, Fish Richardson, Boston, Mass., argued for appellant. Heidi A. Schiller, Choate, Hall Stewart, Boston, Mass., argued for appellee. With her on the brief was Toby H. Kusmer, of Schiller Kusmer. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of United States Patent and Trademark Office. Before ARCHER, LOURIE and ALARCON, Circuit Judges. Honorable Arthur L. Alarcon, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation. ALARCON, Circuit
Application of Quik-Print Copy Shops, Inc.
616 F.2d 523 (C.C.P.A. 1980) Cited 9 times 1 Legal Analyses
Appeal No. 79-613. March 13, 1980. Arland T. Stein, Pittsburgh, Pa., attorney of record for appellant; Frederick H. Colen and Frederick L. Tolhurst, Pittsburgh, Pa., of counsel. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks; Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Donald R. Fraser, Vincent L. Barker, Jr. and Lynda E. Roesch of Wilson, Fraser, Barker Clemens, Toledo, Ohio, attorneys of record for Quickprint, Inc. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal
The Driving Force, Inc. v. Manpower, Inc.
538 F. Supp. 57 (E.D. Pa. 1982) Cited 7 times
Lifting a primary jurisdiction stay despite pending appeal of agency determination because the issues before the court were broader than the matters before the agency's appellate body
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"

Accu-fit Clubfitting Inc.

6 Cited authorities

Application of Abcor Development Corp.

In Abcor, the question before the court was whether applicant's alleged mark (GASBADGE) was "merely descriptive" within the meaning of § 2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1).

University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co.

In University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 1376, 217 USPQ 505, 509 (Fed. Cir. 1983), the court added that section 2(a) embraces concepts of the right to privacy which may be violated even in the absence of likelihood of confusion.

Bose Corp. v. International Jensen Inc.

Application of Quik-Print Copy Shops, Inc.

The Driving Force, Inc. v. Manpower, Inc.

Lifting a primary jurisdiction stay despite pending appeal of agency determination because the issues before the court were broader than the matters before the agency's appellate body

Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

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"