§

Alliant Techsystems Inc.

No. 78546549 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 2009)
Alliant Techsystems Inc.

10 Cited authorities

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

    529 U.S. 205 (2000)   Cited 799 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that fanciful, arbitrary, and suggestive marks are inherently distinctive

  2. Paddington Corp. v. Attiki Importers Distr

    996 F.2d 577 (2d Cir. 1993)   Cited 274 times
    Holding that bad faith existed where the defendant selected a similar design to distribute

  3. Tone Bros., Inc. v. Sysco Corp.

    28 F.3d 1192 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 73 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Considering secondary meaning survey conducted in 1990 even though allegedly infringing product entered the market in 1998

  4. In re Pacer Technology

    338 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 48 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 02-1602. DECIDED: August 4, 2003. Appeal from the Court of Appeals, Gajarsa, Circuit Judge. Thomas E. Schatzel, Law Offices of Thomas E. Schatzel, of Los Gatos, California, argued for appellant. Raymond T. Chen, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, Virginia, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were John M. Whealan, Solicitor; and Cynthia C. Lynch, Associate Solicitor. Before LOURIE, GAJARSA, and LINN, Circuit Judges. GAJARSA

  5. Seabrook Foods v. Bar-Well Foods LTD

    568 F.2d 1342 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 101 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Setting forth analysis governing inherent distinctiveness of design marks

  6. 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"

  7. Hoover Co. v. Royal Appliance Mfg. Co.

    238 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 15 times
    Holding mark "Number One in Floorcare" was "generally laudatory phrase" not entitled to trademark protection in light of absence of evidence of secondary meaning; noting, "Self-laudatory or puffing marks are regarded as a condensed form of describing the character or quality of the goods."

  8. In re Loew's Theatres, Inc.

    769 F.2d 764 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 26 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding incontestable mark DURANGO for cigars insufficient to establish distinctiveness of DURANGO for chewing tobacco

  9. 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)

  10. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,914 times   126 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark