§

ALP of South Beach Inc.

No. 75819306 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2006)
ALP of South Beach Inc.

8 Cited authorities

  1. Grotrian, Helfferich v. Steinway Sons

    523 F.2d 1331 (2d Cir. 1975)   Cited 196 times
    Holding that “Steinway The Instrument of Immortals” was a properly “registered slogan” notwithstanding the fact that Steinway itself was also a protected mark

  2. In re Save Venice New York, Inc.

    259 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 19 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Observing that " registered mark is incontestable only in the form registered and for the goods or services claimed"

  3. In re California Innovations, Inc.

    329 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 9 times

    No. 02-1407. DECIDED: May 22, 2003. Michael A. Grow, Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin Kahn, PLLC of Washington, DC, argued for appellant. With him on the brief were Charles M. Marmelstein and Evan S. Stolove. Henry G. Sawtelle, Associate, United States Patent and Trademark Office of Arlington, Virginia, argued for the appellee. With him on the brief were John M. Whealan, Solicitor, and Cynthia C. Lynch, Associate Solicitor. Before NEWMAN, CLEVENGER, and RADER, Circuit Judges. RADER, Circuit Judge. California

  4. Savin Corporation v. Savin Group

    02 Civ. 9377 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2003)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Savin Corp. v. Savin Group. 2003 WL 22451731 (S.D.N.Y.), the court indicated that the foregoing sentence "is not easy to interpret."

  5. In re Budge Mfg. Co., Inc.

    857 F.2d 773 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Appeal No. 87-1541. September 21, 1988. Eugene E. Renz, Jr., Eugene E. Renz, Jr., P.C., Media, Pa., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was John S. Munday. Albin F. Drost, Asst. Sol., Com'r of Patents and Trademarks, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol. and Fred E. McKelvey, Deputy Solicitor. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before NIES and BISSELL, Circuit Judges, and NICHOLS, Senior Circuit Judge. NIES, Circuit Judge.

  6. R. Neumann Co. v. Overseas Shipments

    326 F.2d 786 (C.C.P.A. 1964)   Cited 6 times
    In R. Neumann Co. v. Overseas Shipments, Inc., 326 F.2d 786, 51 CCPA 946, 140 USPQ 276 (1964), a similar argument was made that the mark DURAHYDE on shoes was not deceptive as an indication of leather because of tags affixed to the shoes proclaiming the legend "Outwears leather.

  7. Denney v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corporation

    263 F.2d 347 (C.C.P.A. 1959)   Cited 7 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6410. February 5, 1959. Mock Blum, New York City (Asher Blum, New York City, and Charles R. Allen, Jr., Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Howard A. Rosenberg, New York City (William R. Liberman, New York City, of counsel), for appellee. Before WORLEY, Acting Chief Judge, and RICH and MARTIN, Judges. MARTIN, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, speaking through the Assistant Commissioner, affirming the decision of the Examiner of Interferences

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,599 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"