Bell & Howell Document Management Products Co.

5 Cited authorities

  1. In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, Smith

    828 F.2d 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 57 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding applicant's incontestable registration of a service mark for "cash management account" did not automatically entitle applicant to registration of that mark for broader financial services
  2. H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. International Ass'n of Fire Chiefs, Inc.

    782 F.2d 987 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 44 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Reversing decision of TTAB that "Fire Chief," as applied to monthly magazine circulated to fire departments, was generic
  3. 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"
  4. In re K-T Zoe Furniture, Inc.

    16 F.3d 390 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 92-1509. February 8, 1994. Jerome A. Gross, Jerome A. Gross Associates, of St. Louis, Missouri, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Carol J. Hamilton. Nancy C. Slutter, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, of Arlington, Virginia, argued for appellee. With her on the brief was Fred E. McKelvey, Solicitor. Of counsel were Richard E. Schafer, Lee E. Barrett and Albin F. Drost. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before

  5. In re Montrachet S.A

    878 F.2d 375 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 5 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 89-1114. June 30, 1989. John J. McGlew, McGlew Tuttle, P.C., New York City, argued for appellant. Nancy Slutter, Associate Sol., Office of the Sol., Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With her on the brief was Fred E. McKelvey, Sol. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, SKELTON, Senior Circuit Judge, and NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. Appellant Montrachet S.A., a French company, appeals the decision of