§

Banana Republic (Apparel), LLC

No. 77375380 (T.T.A.B. May. 9, 2013)
Banana Republic (Apparel), LLC

8 Cited authorities

  1. Sweats Fashions v. Pannill Knitting Co.

    833 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 163 times
    Finding that, on review of a grant of summary judgment in a USPTO opposition proceeding, "[opposer] would have us infer bad faith because of [registrant's] awareness of [opposer's] marks. However, an inference of 'bad faith' requires something more than mere knowledge of a prior similar mark. That is all the record here shows."

  2. In re Bayer

    488 F.3d 960 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 39 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Endorsing the use of internet evidence as admissible and competent evidence for evaluating a trademark

  3. 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

  4. In re Stereotaxis, Inc.

    429 F.3d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 7 times
    Affirming TTAB's finding that STEREOTAXIS was descriptive of certain magnetic medical devices and services because it described their functions and purposes—performing the “stereotaxis” brain surgery technique

  5. 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).

  6. In re Slokevage

    441 F.3d 957 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 5 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Interpreting Wal-Mart and holding that, where the alleged trade dress is incorporated into the product itself, it amounts to product design

  7. In re Bongrain Intern

    894 F.2d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 89-1536. January 23, 1990. Thomas E. Young, Body, Vickers Daniels, Cleveland, Ohio, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Robert V. Vickers. Albin F. Drost, Associate Sol., Office of the Sol., of Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With him on the brief was Fred E. McKelvey, Sol. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before NEWMAN and MAYER Circuit Judges, and DUMBAULL Senior District Judge. The Honorable Edward Dumbauld, Senior

  8. Levi Strauss Co. v. Genesco, Inc.

    742 F.2d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 13 times
    In Levi Strauss Co. v. Genesco, Inc., 742 F.2d 1401, 222 U.S.P.Q. 939 (Fed. Cir. 1984), we affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's refusal to register a mark for a shoe tab. Noting the significant prior use of such tabs by other companies, we held that "Levi's use of a tab on shoes has been neither first nor exclusive," thus, it failed to show that its mark was distinctive.