§

Autodesk, Inc.

No. 78852822 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2013)
Autodesk, Inc.

13 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. 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"

  3. Yamaha Intern. Corp. v. Hoshino Gakki Co.

    840 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 46 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding secondary meaning for shape of guitar head always appearing in advertising and promotional literature

  4. Cicena Ltd. v. Columbia Telecommunications

    900 F.2d 1546 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 36 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that use of eighteen months is "evidence point[ing] strongly away from a finding of secondary meaning"

  5. Autodesk, Inc. v. Dassault Systems Solidworks Corp.

    685 F. Supp. 2d 1023 (N.D. Cal. 2009)

    No. C 08-04397 WHA. December 31, 2009. John Thomas McCarthy, Lynn Marion Humphreys, Michael A. Jacobs, David E. Melaugh, Deok Keun Matthew Ann, Jacqueline Bos, James E. Hough, Nathaniel Bryan Sabri, Morrison Foerster LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff. Brian C. Cannon, Claude M. Stern, Evette Dionna Pennypacker, Fabish M. Zachary, Maureen Ryan, Roberts Pallios Andrea, Thomas Robert Watson, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver Hedges, LLP, Redwood Shores, CA, for Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION ON THE USE

  6. In re Bongrain Intern

    894 F.2d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Determining that "[g]rowth in sales" did not prove acquired distinctiveness where it "may indicate the popularity of the product itself rather than recognition of the mark"

  7. Roux Laboratories, Inc. v. Clairol Inc.

    427 F.2d 823 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 24 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the phrase "Hair Color So Natural Only Her Hairdresser Knows for Sure" is protectable as a trademark

  8. 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.

  9. In re Hehr Manufacturing Co.

    279 F.2d 526 (C.C.P.A. 1960)   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding secondary meaning based upon $112,000 in general advertising expenditures, of which $30,000 directly attributable to the alleged trademark, over ten years

  10. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,843 times   125 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,595 times   273 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"

  12. Section 2.41 - Proof of distinctiveness under section 2(f)

    37 C.F.R. § 2.41   Cited 12 times   4 Legal Analyses

    (a)For a trademark or service mark - (1)Ownership of prior registration(s). In appropriate cases, ownership of one or more active prior registrations on the Principal Register or under the Trademark Act of 1905 of the same mark may be accepted as prima facie evidence of distinctiveness if the goods or services are sufficiently similar to the goods or services in the application; however, further evidence may be required. (2)Five years substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce. In appropriate

  13. Section 2.20 - Declarations in lieu of oaths

    37 C.F.R. § 2.20   Cited 8 times   7 Legal Analyses

    Instead of an oath, affidavit, or sworn statement, the language of 28 U.S.C. 1746 , or the following declaration language, may be used: The signatory being warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. 1001 , and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of the application or submission or any registration resulting therefrom, declares that all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true and