Apotex Tech-nologies Inc.

8 Cited authorities

In re Steelbuilding.com
415 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 26 times 2 Legal Analyses
Affirming the refusal of the Patent and Trademark Office to register the mark STEELBUILDING.COM, because the mark was descriptive of online services for the design of steel buildings, and lacked secondary meaning
Magic Wand, Inc. v. RDB, Inc.
940 F.2d 638 (Fed. Cir. 1991) Cited 32 times 1 Legal Analyses
Explaining that the Lanham Act is clear "that the relevant public for a genericness determination is the purchasing or consuming public"
In re MBNA America Bank, N.A.
340 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 11 times 1 Legal Analyses
Noting that arbitrary marks are inherently distinctive
Application of Abcor Development Corp.
588 F.2d 811 (C.C.P.A. 1978) Cited 36 times 2 Legal Analyses
In Abcor, the question before the court was whether applicant's alleged mark (GASBADGE) was "merely descriptive" within the meaning of § 2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1).
In re Gyulay
820 F.2d 1216 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 14 times 1 Legal Analyses
Stating that the Board did not err in affirming the examiner's prima facie case that the mark was merely descriptive
In re Omaha Nat. Corp.
819 F.2d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 4 times 1 Legal Analyses
Appeal No. 86-1567. May 20, 1987. Dennis L. Thomte, Zarley, McKee, Thomte, Voorhees Sease, Omaha, Neb., argued for appellant. Nancy C. Slutter, Asst. Sol., Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With her on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol. and Fred E. McKelvey, Deputy Sol., Washington, D.C. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before NIES, Circuit Judge, COWEN, Senior Circuit Judge, and ARCHER, Circuit Judge. NIES, Circuit Judge. Omaha National Bank appeals
Modern Optics v. Univis Lens Company
234 F.2d 504 (C.C.P.A. 1956) Cited 10 times
In Modern Optics v. Univis Lens Co., 234 F.2d 504, 43 C.C.P.A. 970, (1956), the court concluded that "CV" was a valid trademark even though it was composed of the initials of the words "continuous vision" which were alleged to be descriptive of trifocal lenses.
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,597 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"

Apotex Tech-nologies Inc.

8 Cited authorities

Affirming the refusal of the Patent and Trademark Office to register the mark STEELBUILDING.COM, because the mark was descriptive of online services for the design of steel buildings, and lacked secondary meaning

Explaining that the Lanham Act is clear "that the relevant public for a genericness determination is the purchasing or consuming public"

Noting that arbitrary marks are inherently distinctive

In Abcor, the question before the court was whether applicant's alleged mark (GASBADGE) was "merely descriptive" within the meaning of § 2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1).

Stating that the Board did not err in affirming the examiner's prima facie case that the mark was merely descriptive

In Modern Optics v. Univis Lens Co., 234 F.2d 504, 43 C.C.P.A. 970, (1956), the court concluded that "CV" was a valid trademark even though it was composed of the initials of the words "continuous vision" which were alleged to be descriptive of trifocal lenses.

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"