12 Cited authorities
L.D. Kichler Co. v. Davoil, Inc.
192 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999) Cited 52 timesHolding that “any” use by third parties does not preclude an applicant's use from being substantially exclusive
In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, Smith
828 F.2d 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 57 times 4 Legal AnalysesHolding 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
Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina
670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982) Cited 58 timesHolding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"
Yamaha Intern. Corp. v. Hoshino Gakki Co.
840 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 46 times 2 Legal AnalysesFinding secondary meaning for shape of guitar head always appearing in advertising and promotional literature
In re Bongrain Intern
894 F.2d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 10 times 1 Legal AnalysesDetermining that "[g]rowth in sales" did not prove acquired distinctiveness where it "may indicate the popularity of the product itself rather than recognition of the mark"
Roux Laboratories, Inc. v. Clairol Inc.
427 F.2d 823 (C.C.P.A. 1970) Cited 24 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that the phrase "Hair Color So Natural Only Her Hairdresser Knows for Sure" is protectable as a trademark
Univ. Oil Prod. v. Rexall Drug Chemical
463 F.2d 1122 (C.C.P.A. 1972) Cited 12 timesFinding that the parent corporation had a "real interest" in the proceeding and thus "standing to institute and maintain it"
Application of Andes Candies Inc.
478 F.2d 1264 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 11 timesPat. Appeal No. 9065. June 14, 1973. E. Manning Giles, Chicago, Ill., atty. of record, for appellant. Pope, Ballard, Shepard Fowle, Chicago, Ill., of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Jack E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN and LANE, Associate Judges, and ALMOND, Senior Judge. MARKEY, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and
McCormick Company v. Summers
354 F.2d 668 (C.C.P.A. 1966) Cited 9 timesIn 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.
Bakers Franchise v. Royal Crown Co.
404 F.2d 985 (C.C.P.A. 1969) Cited 2 timesPatent Appeal No. 8028. January 9, 1969. Weil Lee, Gilbert H. Weil, Alfred T. Lee, New York City, for appellant. Brumbaugh, Free, Graves Donohue, Kay S. Cornaby, New York City, (Richard G. Fuller, Jr., New York City, of counsel) for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, SMITH, ALMOND, and BALDWIN, Associate Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 150 USPQ 698, sustaining appellee's opposition to the registration by appellant
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,599 times 274 Legal AnalysesGranting 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"
Section 1063 - Opposition to registration
15 U.S.C. § 1063 Cited 147 times 19 Legal AnalysesIdentifying "dilution by blurring ... under section 1125(c) as a permissible grounds for opposition to a registration"