§

Adlon Brand GmbH & Co. KG c/o FUNDUS FONDS-Verwaltungen GmbH

No. 85831682 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 2016)
Adlon Brand GmbH & Co. KG c/o FUNDUS FONDS-Verwaltungen GmbH

11 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. In re Newbridge Cutlery Co.

    776 F.3d 854 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 5 times   3 Legal Analyses

    No. 2013–1535. 01-15-2015 In re THE NEWBRIDGE CUTLERY COMPANY (trading as Newbridge Silverware). Philip Raible, Rayner Rowe LLP, of New York, NY, argued for appellant. Nathan K. Kelley, Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Christina J. Hieber and Thomas L. Casagrande, Associate Solicitors. LINN, Circuit Judge. Philip Raible, Rayner Rowe LLP, of New York, NY, argued for appellant. Nathan K. Kelley, Solicitor, United

  3. In re Hutchinson Technology Inc.

    852 F.2d 552 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 19 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the issue presented by a composite mark consisting of personal names is "what the purchasing public would think when confronted with the mark as a whole"

  4. 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.

  5. Action Temporary Services v. Labor Force

    870 F.2d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 10 times

    No. 88-1446. March 23, 1989. J. Rodman Steele, Steele, Gould Fried, Philadelphia, Pa., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Gregory A. Nelson. Jonathan E. Jobe, Jr., Hubbard, Thurman, Turner Tucker, Dallas, Tex., argued for appellee. With him on the brief was Molly Buck Richard. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before RICH, SMITH and NEWMAN, Circuit Judges. EDWARD S. SMITH, Circuit Judge. In this concurrent use proceeding, the

  6. In re Etablissements Darty Et Fils

    759 F.2d 15 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 8 times
    In Darty et Fils, however, even though, the primary question was whether "Darty" was primarily merely a surname, the Board had correctly held that the Opposers’ "provides no support for their contention."

  7. In re Kahan & Weisz Jewelry Mfg. Corp.

    508 F.2d 831 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeal No. 74-546. January 16, 1975. Edward Halle, New York City, atty. of record, for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. BALDWIN, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirming the examiner's refusal to register the mark DUCHARME as a trademark for

  8. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,920 times   127 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 3,044 times   99 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,612 times   274 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"

  11. Section 2.142 - Time and manner of ex parte appeals

    37 C.F.R. § 2.142   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) An appeal filed under the provisions of § 2.141(a) from the final refusal of an application must be filed within the time provided in § 2.62(a) . (2) An appeal filed under the provisions of § 2.141(b) from an expungement or reexamination proceeding must be filed within three months from the issue date of the final Office action. (3) An appeal is taken by filing a notice of appeal, as prescribed in § 2.126 , and paying the appeal fee. (b) (1) The brief of appellant shall be filed within sixty