§

Baroness Small Estates, Inc. v. American Wine Trade, Inc.

No. 92051369 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2012)
Baroness Small Estates, Inc. v. American Wine Trade, Inc.

6 Cited authorities

  1. Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.

    222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 74 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding similarity between LASER for golf clubs and golf balls and LASERSWING for golf practice devices, and noting that "the term ‘swing’ is both common and descriptive" and therefore "may be given little weight in reaching a conclusion on likelihood of confusion"

  2. Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina

    670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

  3. H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. International Ass'n of Fire Chiefs, Inc.

    782 F.2d 987 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 45 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Reversing decision of TTAB that "Fire Chief," as applied to monthly magazine circulated to fire departments, was generic

  4. 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

  5. In re Societe Generale Des Eaux Minerales De Vittel S.A.

    824 F.2d 957 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 9 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. 87-1127. July 14, 1987. Paul F. Kilmer, Mason, Fenwick Lawrence, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Albin F. Drost, Office of the Solicitor, Arlington, Va., for appellee. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH and BISSELL, Circuit Judges. RICH, Circuit Judge. This appeal is from the 30 September 1986 decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (board), 1 USPQ2d

  6. 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.