Buell Motorcycle Co. v. Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha

11 Cited authorities

In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, Smith
828 F.2d 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 58 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
In re Northland Aluminum Products, Inc.
777 F.2d 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1985) Cited 49 times
Holding "[e]vidence of the public's understanding of term," for purposes of establishing if mark is descriptive, "may be obtained from any competent source, including .^.^. dictionaries"
H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. International Ass'n of Fire Chiefs, Inc.
782 F.2d 987 (Fed. Cir. 1986) Cited 47 times 8 Legal Analyses
Reversing decision of TTAB that "Fire Chief," as applied to monthly magazine circulated to fire departments, was generic
Magic Wand, Inc. v. RDB, Inc.
940 F.2d 638 (Fed. Cir. 1991) Cited 33 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"
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).
University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co.
703 F.2d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1983) Cited 20 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.
Remington Products v. North Am. Philips Corp.
892 F.2d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 10 times
Holding that the phrase "travel care" had "gone into the public domain as a category of goods designation in the marketplace by reason of its extensive use as such" by the time the trademark registration was sought, the point at which the descriptiveness of the mark is properly determined
De Walt, Inc. v. Magna Power Tool Corp.
289 F.2d 656 (C.C.P.A. 1961) Cited 25 times
In DeWalt, Inc. v. Magna Power Tool Corp., 289 F.2d 656, 48 CCPA 909, at CCPA p. 918, we pointed out that "damage" will be presumed or inferred when the mark sought to be registered is descriptive of the goods of the opposer and the opposer is one who has an interest in using the descriptive term in its business, collecting a number of cases supporting the point.
Application of Thunderbird Products Corp.
406 F.2d 1389 (C.C.P.A. 1969) Cited 8 times
Patent Appeal Nos. 8084, 8085. March 6, 1969. Eugene F. Buell, Buell, Blenko Ziesenheim, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., of counsel) for the Commissioner of Patents. [Oral argument January 9, 1969 by Mr. Buell and Mr. Nakamura] Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and KIRKPATRICK, Judges. Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. RICH, Judge. These two appeals from decisions
McCormick Company v. Summers
354 F.2d 668 (C.C.P.A. 1966) Cited 9 times
In McCormick this court said "registrability of a mark must be determined on the basis of facts as they exist at the time when the issue of registrability is under consideration" and it appears to us consistent with McCormick and DeWalt as well as sound in principle to decide in the present appeal that the time when the issue of registrability is under consideration extends at least to the time the application is acted on in the Patent Office.
Section 1064 - Cancellation of registration
15 U.S.C. § 1064 Cited 934 times 51 Legal Analyses
Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services

Buell Motorcycle Co. v. Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha

11 Cited authorities

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

Holding "[e]vidence of the public's understanding of term," for purposes of establishing if mark is descriptive, "may be obtained from any competent source, including .^.^. dictionaries"

Reversing decision of TTAB that "Fire Chief," as applied to monthly magazine circulated to fire departments, was generic

Explaining that the Lanham Act is clear "that the relevant public for a genericness determination is the purchasing or consuming public"

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).

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.

Holding that the phrase "travel care" had "gone into the public domain as a category of goods designation in the marketplace by reason of its extensive use as such" by the time the trademark registration was sought, the point at which the descriptiveness of the mark is properly determined

Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services