§

Cambridge Theranostics Limited

No. 79049471 (T.T.A.B. May. 10, 2011)
Cambridge Theranostics Limited

7 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. In re Save Venice New York, Inc.

    259 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 19 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Observing that " registered mark is incontestable only in the form registered and for the goods or services claimed"

  3. 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).

  4. 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.

  5. 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

  6. Polaroid Corp. v. Anken Chemical Film

    343 F.2d 771 (C.C.P.A. 1965)   Cited 1 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7280. April 15, 1965. Donald L. Brown, Cambridge, Mass., for appellant. Robert B. Harmon, Washington, D.C., for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges. ALMOND, Judge. Polaroid Corporation appeals from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 138 USPQ 327, dismissing its opposition to registration of the mark "POLYCOPY" for photocopying machines, photographic developer and photographic copying paper. Application was filed by

  7. In re W.A. Sheaffer Pen Co.

    158 F.2d 390 (C.C.P.A. 1946)   Cited 15 times

    Patent Appeal No. 5211. December 9, 1946. Appeal from Commissioner of Patents, Serial No. 439,297. Proceeding in the matter of the application of W.A. Sheaffer Pen Company for registration of a mark. From a decision of the Commissioner of Patents refusing to register such mark, the applicant appeals. Affirmed. Thorley von Holst, of Chicago, Ill. (M. Hudson Rathburn, of Chicago, Ill., and Edwin R. Hutchinson, of Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. W.W. Cochran, of Washington, D.C. (Pasquale