§

adidas AG v. Christian Faith Fellowship Church

92053314 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2019)
adidas AG v. Christian Faith Fellowship Church

10 Cited authorities

  1. On-Line Careline, Inc. v. America Online

    229 F.3d 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 76 times
    Applying Recot in analyzing the similarity of services

  2. Imperial Tobacco v. Philip Morris, Inc.

    899 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 82 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding that promotional use of a mark on “incidental products” like whiskey, pens, watches, sunglasses, and food did not constitute use of mark for cigarettes

  3. Crash Dummy v. Mattel

    601 F.3d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 26 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that we "review[] [the TTAB's] evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion"

  4. Cerveceria Centroamericana v. Cerveceria

    892 F.2d 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 50 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in the absence of evidence of intent to resume use during the period of non-use, the TTAB "may conclude the registrant has . . . failed to rebut the presumption of abandonment," even when there is evidence of intent to resume after the period of nonuse

  5. Christian Faith Fellowship Church v. adidas AG

    841 F.3d 986 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 3 times   7 Legal Analyses
    In Christian Faith Fellowship, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board concluded that two sales totaling $38 to two out-of-state residents were de minimis and therefore not sales in commerce.

  6. In re Bose Corp.

    772 F.2d 866 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 30 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding pentagonal shape of loudspeaker functional where applicant's promotional materials lauded shape as functional part of sound system

  7. Dena Corp. v. Belvedere International, Inc.

    950 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 9 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 91-1156. December 4, 1991. John M. Curtin, Leydig, Voit Mayer, of Chicago, Ill., argued and James B. Muskal and Amy N. Cohen, Leydig, Voit Mayer, Chicago, Ill., were on the brief, for appellant. Donald L. Dennison, Dennison, Meserole, Pollack Scheiner, of Arlington, Va., argued, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MICHEL, PLAGER and RADER, Circuit Judges. RADER, Circuit Judge. In Opposition No. 81,365, Dena Corporation, opposer, appeals the Trademark Trial and

  8. In re Bose Corp.

    546 F.2d 893 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 1 times

    Patent Appeal No. 76-581. December 16, 1976. Charles Hieken, Hieken Cohen, Waltham, Mass., atty. of record, for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. LANE, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (board) affirming the refusal to register SYNCOM for loudspeaker

  9. Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 2,954 times   96 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

  10. Section 1068 - Action of Director in interference, opposition, and proceedings for concurrent use registration or for cancellation

    15 U.S.C. § 1068   Cited 25 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Stating that, in such proceedings, the Patent and Trademark Office may "modify the application or registration by limiting the goods or services specified therein"