Charles N. Van Valkenburgh

19 Cited authorities

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

    529 U.S. 205 (2000)   Cited 774 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 584 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. Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co.

    514 U.S. 159 (1995)   Cited 566 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Holding companies may not "inhibit[] legitimate competition" by trademarking desirable features to "put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage"
  5. Aromatique, Inc. v. Gold Seal, Inc.

    28 F.3d 863 (8th Cir. 1994)   Cited 181 times
    Holding that the plaintiff's pillow-shaped cellophane packages were not inherently distinctive, because commonplace
  6. 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
  7. 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"
  8. 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
  9. 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"
  10. Textron, Inc. v. U.S. Intern. Trade Com'n

    753 F.2d 1019 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 42 times
    Holding that the "overall design" of the product was functional, but proceeding to examine whether the two arguably non-functional features had acquired secondary meaning
  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,287 times   1030 Legal Analyses
    Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it
  12. Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,582 times   267 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 1.75 - Claim(s)

    37 C.F.R. § 1.75   Cited 111 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Setting forth proper drafts for independent and dependent claims
  14. Section 1.71 - Detailed description and specification of the invention

    37 C.F.R. § 1.71   Cited 14 times

    (a) The specification must include a written description of the invention or discovery and of the manner and process of making and using the same, and is required to be in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which the invention or discovery appertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same. (b) The specification must set forth the precise invention for which a patent is solicited, in such manner as to distinguish