12 Cited authorities
Inwood Laboratories v. Ives Laboratories
456 U.S. 844 (1982) Cited 1,261 times 25 Legal AnalysesHolding that secondary liability for trademark infringement arises when a manufacturer or distributor intentionally induces another to infringe
Traffix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc.
532 U.S. 23 (2001) Cited 585 times 28 Legal AnalysesHolding that the dual-spring design was not protectable because it had a purpose “beyond serving the purpose of informing consumers that the sign stands are made by” the plaintiff
Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co.
514 U.S. 159 (1995) Cited 566 times 51 Legal AnalysesHolding companies may not "inhibit[] legitimate competition" by trademarking desirable features to "put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage"
Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc.
424 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 58 times 1 Legal AnalysesFinding that attorney argument did not demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to avoid summary judgment
In re Morton-Norwich Products, Inc.
671 F.2d 1332 (C.C.P.A. 1982) Cited 108 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that configuration of "Glass Plus" spray-bottle warranted trademark protection
Valu Engineering, Inc. v. Rexnord Corp.
278 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Cited 57 times 4 Legal AnalysesHolding that a consideration in determining whether a particular product feature is functional is the existence of "advertising materials in which the originator of the design touts the design's utilitarian advantages"
In re Becton, Dickinson & Co.
675 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 17 times 1 Legal AnalysesNo. 2011–1111. 2012-04-12 In re BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY. Richard Z. Lehv, Fross, Zelnivk, Lehrman & Zissu, of New York, NY, argued for the appellant. Christina J. Hieber, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, VA, argued for the appellee. With her on the brief was Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor. Of counsel was Amy Nelson. CLEVENGER 4,741,446, 4,991,104, 6,602,206. Cited. Richard Z. Lehv, Fross, Zelnivk, Lehrman & Zissu, of New York, NY, argued for the appellant
Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc.
901 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018) Cited 9 times2018-1688 08-27-2018 ZHENG CAI, DBA Tai Chi Green Tea Inc., Appellant v. DIAMOND HONG, INC., Appellee Zheng Cai, Vernon Hills, IL, pro se. Jonathan E. Moskin, Foley & Lardner LLP, New York, NY, for appellee. Also represented by Diane Grace Elder, Chicago, IL. Wallach, Circuit Judge. Zheng Cai, Vernon Hills, IL, pro se. Jonathan E. Moskin, Foley & Lardner LLP, New York, NY, for appellee. Also represented by Diane Grace Elder, Chicago, IL. Before Prost, Chief Judge, Wallach and Hughes, Circuit Judges
Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification
15 U.S.C. § 1051 Cited 3,806 times 124 Legal AnalysesRequiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,585 times 272 Legal AnalysesGranting 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"
Section 1091 - Supplemental register
15 U.S.C. § 1091 Cited 77 timesStating that marks registered on the Supplemental Register "must be capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods or services"
Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence
37 C.F.R. § 2.122 Cited 23 times 1 Legal AnalysesProviding that in inter partes proceeding, "[t]he allegation in an application for registration, or in a registration, of a date of use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant" but, rather, "a date of use of a mark must be established by competent evidence"