§

Bottega Veneta International S.a.r.l.

No. 77219184 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2013)
Bottega Veneta International S.a.r.l.

11 Cited authorities

  1. Traffix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc.

    532 U.S. 23 (2001)   Cited 591 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

  2. In re Morton-Norwich Products, Inc.

    671 F.2d 1332 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 108 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that configuration of "Glass Plus" spray-bottle warranted trademark protection

  3. 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

  4. Brunswick Corp. v. British Seagull LTD

    35 F.3d 1527 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 27 times
    Holding color black for outboard motors was functional because, while it had no utilitarian effect on the mechanical working of the engines, it nevertheless provided other identifiable competitive advantages, for example ease of coordination with a variety of boat colors and reduction in the apparent size of the engines

  5. Deere Co. v. Farmhand, Inc.

    560 F. Supp. 85 (S.D. Iowa 1982)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that green was functional for farm equipment since many farmers desire their equipment to match

  6. Deere Co. v. Farmhand, Inc.

    721 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1983)   Cited 21 times
    Holding that because farmers prefer to match their loaders to their tractors, the doctrine of aesthetic functionality barred John Deere from protecting its unique green color

  7. University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co.

    703 F.2d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 19 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 1376, 217 USPQ 505, 509 (Fed. Cir. 1983), the court added that section 2(a) embraces concepts of the right to privacy which may be violated even in the absence of likelihood of confusion.

  8. 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

  9. Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group, Inc.

    648 F.2d 1335 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 9 times
    Finding extensive licensing of mark MONOPOLY for real estate game relevant evidence of relatedness of goods

  10. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,843 times   125 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,595 times   273 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"