§

Bonhams & Butterfields Auctioneers Corp.

No. 85443480 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2016)
Bonhams & Butterfields Auctioneers Corp.

9 Cited authorities

  1. Electronic Design Sales v. Electronic Sys

    954 F.2d 713 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 28 times
    Holding that purchaser confusion is the "primary focus" and, in case of goods and services that are sold, "the inquiry generally will turn on whether actual or potential `purchasers' are confused"

  2. In re Hutchinson Technology Inc.

    852 F.2d 552 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 19 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the issue presented by a composite mark consisting of personal names is "what the purchasing public would think when confronted with the mark as a whole"

  3. In re Etablissements Darty Et Fils

    759 F.2d 15 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 8 times
    In Darty et Fils, however, even though, the primary question was whether "Darty" was primarily merely a surname, the Board had correctly held that the Opposers’ "provides no support for their contention."

  4. Witco Chemical Co. v. Whitfield Chemical

    418 F.2d 1403 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 11 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8207. December 18, 1969. Sidney Wallenstein, Chicago, Ill., attorney of record, for appellant. Ben Cohen, Washington, D.C., Charles B. Spangenberg, Chicago, Ill., of counsel. William C. McCoy, Jr., Robert D. Hart, McCoy, Greene Howell, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellee. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, MATTHEWS, Judge, sitting by designation, and ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges. RICH, Acting Chief Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal

  5. Application of Harris-Intertype Corporation

    518 F.2d 629 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 5 times
    In Harris, the court analyzed the Lanham Act's mandate that no trademark will be given to a name that is " primarily merely a surname."

  6. In re Kahan & Weisz Jewelry Mfg. Corp.

    508 F.2d 831 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeal No. 74-546. January 16, 1975. Edward Halle, New York City, atty. of record, for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. BALDWIN, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirming the examiner's refusal to register the mark DUCHARME as a trademark for

  7. Kimberly Clark Corp. v. Marzall

    94 F. Supp. 254 (D.D.C. 1950)   Cited 1 times

    Civ. Nos. 1897, 5175. December 8, 1950. Cushman, Darby Cushman, Washington, D.C., C. Willard Hayes, Max Louis, Washington, D.C., Cyril A. Soans, William E. Anderson, Chicago, Ill., of counsel, for plaintiff. E.L. Reynolds, Sol., Washington, D.C., for defendant. KIRKLAND, District Judge. This case is a consolidation of two separate causes of action filed by the plaintiff, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, to authorize the Commissioner of Patents to register plaintiff's

  8. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,914 times   126 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,610 times   274 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"