Backflow Prevention Device Inspections, Inc.

12 Cited authorities

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

    529 U.S. 205 (2000)   Cited 794 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that fanciful, arbitrary, and suggestive marks are inherently distinctive
  2. Traffix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc.

    532 U.S. 23 (2001)   Cited 599 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding 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
  3. Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co.

    514 U.S. 159 (1995)   Cited 573 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Holding companies may not "inhibit[] legitimate competition" by trademarking desirable features to "put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage"
  4. Thomas Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp.

    65 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 1995)   Cited 86 times
    Holding that "Copying is only evidence of secondary meaning if the defendant's intent in copying is to confuse consumers and pass off his product as the plaintiff's. In that situation, the defendant's belief that plaintiff's trade dress has acquired secondary meaning — so that his copying will indeed facilitate his passing off — is some evidence that the trade dress actually has acquired secondary meaning."
  5. In re Morton-Norwich Products, Inc.

    671 F.2d 1332 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 109 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that configuration of "Glass Plus" spray-bottle warranted trademark protection
  6. Valu Engineering, Inc. v. Rexnord Corp.

    278 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 59 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding 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"
  7. 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
  8. In re Bose Corp.

    772 F.2d 866 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 31 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding pentagonal shape of loudspeaker functional where applicant's promotional materials lauded shape as functional part of sound system
  9. Application of Honeywell, Inc.

    532 F.2d 180 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 17 times

    Patent Appeal No. 76-526. April 1, 1976. LeRoy Rice, attorney of record, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellant. Molinare, Allegretti, Newitt Witcoff, Chicago, Ill., of counsel. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Gerald H. Bjorge, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, LANE and MILLER, Judges, and ALMOND, Senior Judge. MILLER, Judge. This appeal is from the decision

  10. Application of Mehta

    347 F.2d 859 (C.C.P.A. 1965)   Cited 8 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7217. July 8, 1965. Albert L. Jacobs, New York City, James W. Dent, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (J.E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges. MARTIN, Judge. This appeal is from the refusal of the Patent Office to issue a patent on process claims 1 and 4-6, and product claims 12 and 13 in appellant's application serial No. 765,947 filed October

  11. Section 1746 - Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury

    28 U.S.C. § 1746   Cited 10,396 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Making affidavits and declarations effectively synonymous
  12. 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