§

AGPCH, S.A. de C.V.

No. 87125518 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 18, 2018)
AGPCH, S.A. de C.V.

12 Cited authorities

  1. Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc.

    505 U.S. 763 (1992)   Cited 2,001 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to establish a claim for trade dress infringement, secondary meaning, non-functionality and likelihood of confusion must all be shown

  2. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc.

    529 U.S. 205 (2000)   Cited 794 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that fanciful, arbitrary, and suggestive marks are inherently distinctive

  3. Seabrook Foods v. Bar-Well Foods LTD

    568 F.2d 1342 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 100 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Setting forth analysis governing inherent distinctiveness of design marks

  4. In re Chippendales USA, Inc.

    622 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 23 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that whether the trade dress was "a common basic shape or design" was "inapplicable" because "there has been no showing that the [trade dress] is common generally"

  5. Application of Soccer Sport Supply Company

    507 F.2d 1400 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 6 times

    Patent Appeal No. 74-550. January 9, 1975. Evelyn M. Sommer, New York City, atty. of record, for appellant; Murray Schaffer, New York City, of counsel. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; R.V. Lupo, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. MILLER, Judge. This appeal is from a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, abstracted at 180 USPQ 527 (1973)

  6. 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

  7. Application of McIlhenny Company

    278 F.2d 953 (C.C.P.A. 1960)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that bottle for pepper sauce could not be registered without label where all the submitted advertisements depicted the bottle with labels emphasizing applicant's registered trademark "Tabasco" and its company name

  8. Application of Standard Oil Company

    275 F.2d 945 (C.C.P.A. 1960)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6493. March 8, 1960. Leland L. Chapman, Cleveland, Ohio (Martin T. Fisher, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'Connell, pursuant to provisions of Section 294(d), Title 28 United States Code

  9. Rule 201 - Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts

    Fed. R. Evid. 201   Cited 29,623 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding "[n]ormally, in deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, courts must limit their inquiry to the facts stated in the complaint and the documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint. However, courts may also consider matters of which they may take judicial notice."

  10. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,886 times   126 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 3,016 times   98 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

  12. 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