§

Chalmers Pyjamas Pty Ltd.

No. 79206511 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 7, 2018)
Chalmers Pyjamas Pty Ltd.

11 Cited authorities

  1. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc.

    424 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 62 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that attorney argument did not demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to avoid summary judgment

  2. In re Nett Designs, Inc.

    236 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 28 times
    Finding that prior registrations of marks including the term ULTIMATE "do not conclusively rebut the Board's finding that ULTIMATE is descriptive in the context of this mark"

  3. In re Newbridge Cutlery Co.

    776 F.3d 854 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 5 times   3 Legal Analyses

    No. 2013–1535. 01-15-2015 In re THE NEWBRIDGE CUTLERY COMPANY (trading as Newbridge Silverware). Philip Raible, Rayner Rowe LLP, of New York, NY, argued for appellant. Nathan K. Kelley, Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Christina J. Hieber and Thomas L. Casagrande, Associate Solicitors. LINN, Circuit Judge. Philip Raible, Rayner Rowe LLP, of New York, NY, argued for appellant. Nathan K. Kelley, Solicitor, United

  4. Earnhardt v. Kerry Earnhardt, Inc.

    864 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 1 times

    2016-1939 07-27-2017 Teresa H. EARNHARDT, Appellant v. KERRY EARNHARDT, INC., Appellee Uly Samuel Gunn, Alston & Bird LLP, Atlanta, GA, argued for appellant. Also represented by Larry Currell Jones, Charlotte, NC. David Blaine Sanders, Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A., Charlotte, NC, argued for appellee. Also represented by Cary Baxter Davis, Matthew Felton Tilley. Chen, Circuit Judge. Uly Samuel Gunn , Alston & Bird LLP, Atlanta, GA, argued for appellant. Also represented by Larry Currell Jones

  5. 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"

  6. In re Omega

    494 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 1 times
    Holding that “[i]t is within the discretion of the PTO to require that one's goods be identified with particularity” in a trademark application

  7. In re Water Gremlin Co.

    635 F.2d 841 (C.C.P.A. 1980)   Cited 13 times
    Protecting container designed to provide access to lead sinkers

  8. 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."

  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"

  10. Section 1141f - Effect of filing a request for extension of protection of an international registration to the United States

    15 U.S.C. § 1141f   Cited 8 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a declaration of "bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce"

  11. Section 2.142 - Time and manner of ex parte appeals

    37 C.F.R. § 2.142   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) An appeal filed under the provisions of § 2.141(a) from the final refusal of an application must be filed within the time provided in § 2.62(a) . (2) An appeal filed under the provisions of § 2.141(b) from an expungement or reexamination proceeding must be filed within three months from the issue date of the final Office action. (3) An appeal is taken by filing a notice of appeal, as prescribed in § 2.126 , and paying the appeal fee. (b) (1) The brief of appellant shall be filed within sixty