§

Change Wind Corp.

No. 86046590 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 2017)
Change Wind Corp.

22 Cited authorities

  1. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc.

    529 U.S. 205 (2000)   Cited 776 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that fanciful, arbitrary, and suggestive marks are inherently distinctive

  2. Inwood Laboratories v. Ives Laboratories

    456 U.S. 844 (1982)   Cited 1,261 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that secondary liability for trademark infringement arises when a manufacturer or distributor intentionally induces another to infringe

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

    532 U.S. 23 (2001)   Cited 585 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

  4. 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

  5. Valu Engineering, Inc. v. Rexnord Corp.

    278 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 57 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a consideration in determining whether a particular product feature is functional is the existence of "advertising materials in which the originator of the design touts the design's utilitarian advantages"

  6. Specialized Seating v. Greenwich Industries

    616 F.3d 722 (7th Cir. 2010)   Cited 29 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that cancellation of a trademark's registration does not "affect the mark's validity , because a trademark need not be registered to be enforceable"

  7. In re Steelbuilding.com

    415 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 26 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Affirming the refusal of the Patent and Trademark Office to register the mark STEELBUILDING.COM, because the mark was descriptive of online services for the design of steel buildings, and lacked secondary meaning

  8. In re Becton, Dickinson & Co.

    675 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 17 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 2011–1111. 2012-04-12 In re BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY. Richard Z. Lehv, Fross, Zelnivk, Lehrman & Zissu, of New York, NY, argued for the appellant. Christina J. Hieber, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, VA, argued for the appellee. With her on the brief was Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor. Of counsel was Amy Nelson. CLEVENGER 4,741,446, 4,991,104, 6,602,206. Cited. Richard Z. Lehv, Fross, Zelnivk, Lehrman & Zissu, of New York, NY, argued for the appellant

  9. 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

  10. Cicena Ltd. v. Columbia Telecommunications

    900 F.2d 1546 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 36 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that use of eighteen months is "evidence point[ing] strongly away from a finding of secondary meaning"

  11. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,806 times   124 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,585 times   271 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"

  13. Section 2.52 - Types of drawings and format for drawings

    37 C.F.R. § 2.52   Cited 29 times
    Providing rules for applicants “who seek to register words, letters, numbers, or any combination thereof without claim to any particular font style, size, or color”

  14. Section 2.61 - Action by examiner

    37 C.F.R. § 2.61   Cited 6 times   3 Legal Analyses

    (a) Applications for registration, including amendments to allege use under section 1(c) of the Act, and statements of use under section 1(d) of the Act, will be examined and, if the applicant is found not entitled to registration for any reason, applicant will be notified and advised of the reasons therefor and of any formal requirements or objections. (b) The Office may require the applicant to furnish such information, exhibits, affidavits or declarations, and such additional specimens as may

  15. 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