§

Companhia de Bebidas das Americas ' AMBEV v. The Coca Cola Company

No. 91185739 (T.T.A.B. May. 2, 2012)
Companhia de Bebidas das Americas ' AMBEV v. The Coca Cola Company

12 Cited authorities

  1. L.D. Kichler Co. v. Davoil, Inc.

    192 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 51 times
    Holding that “any” use by third parties does not preclude an applicant's use from being substantially exclusive

  2. 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

  3. Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina

    670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 57 times
    Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

  4. 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

  5. In re Bongrain Intern

    894 F.2d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 89-1536. January 23, 1990. Thomas E. Young, Body, Vickers Daniels, Cleveland, Ohio, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Robert V. Vickers. Albin F. Drost, Associate Sol., Office of the Sol., of Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With him on the brief was Fred E. McKelvey, Sol. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before NEWMAN and MAYER Circuit Judges, and DUMBAULL Senior District Judge. The Honorable Edward Dumbauld, Senior

  6. Roux Laboratories, Inc. v. Clairol Inc.

    427 F.2d 823 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 24 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the phrase "Hair Color So Natural Only Her Hairdresser Knows for Sure" is protectable as a trademark

  7. Univ. Oil Prod. v. Rexall Drug Chemical

    463 F.2d 1122 (C.C.P.A. 1972)   Cited 12 times
    Finding that the parent corporation had a "real interest" in the proceeding and thus "standing to institute and maintain it"

  8. Application of Andes Candies Inc.

    478 F.2d 1264 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 10 times

    Pat. 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

  9. McCormick Company v. Summers

    354 F.2d 668 (C.C.P.A. 1966)   Cited 9 times
    In 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.

  10. Bakers Franchise v. Royal Crown Co.

    404 F.2d 985 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 2 times

    Patent 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

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,580 times   260 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"

  12. Section 1063 - Opposition to registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1063   Cited 145 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Identifying "dilution by blurring ... under section 1125(c) as a permissible grounds for opposition to a registration"