§

Controls Corp. of America

No. 74254945 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 1998)
Controls Corp. of America

10 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. Brunswick Corp. v. British Seagull LTD

    35 F.3d 1527 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 27 times
    Holding color black for outboard motors was functional because, while it had no utilitarian effect on the mechanical working of the engines, it nevertheless provided other identifiable competitive advantages, for example ease of coordination with a variety of boat colors and reduction in the apparent size of the engines

  3. Application of Deister Concentrator Company

    289 F.2d 496 (C.C.P.A. 1961)   Cited 66 times
    Rejecting the need to consider advertising "gimmicks" designed to acquaint the public with a mark that is incapable of acquiring secondary meaning

  4. In re R.M. Smith, Inc.

    734 F.2d 1482 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 15 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that existence of design patent "may be some evidence of non-functionality"

  5. In re Teledyne Industries, Inc.

    696 F.2d 968 (Fed. Cir. 1982)   Cited 12 times
    Finding that applicant failed to rebut the examiner's prima facie case of functionality

  6. 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

  7. Application of Minnesota Mining Mfg. Co.

    335 F.2d 836 (C.C.P.A. 1964)   Cited 14 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7174. August 27, 1964. Mark W. Gehan, Charles H. Lauder, St. Paul, Minn. (Carpenter, Abbott, Coulter Kinney, St. Paul, Minn., of counsel), for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (136 U.S.P.Q. 676, abstract) refusing to register, on the Supplemental Register, appellant's mark on

  8. Application of Pollak Steel Company

    314 F.2d 566 (C.C.P.A. 1963)   Cited 6 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6937. March 13, 1963. Burton Perlman, Paxton Seasongood, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (George C. Roeming, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, and MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 131 USPQ 482, affirming the examiner's ex parte refusal of appellant's application to register its mark

  9. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,805 times   123 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

  10. Section 1091 - Supplemental register

    15 U.S.C. § 1091   Cited 77 times
    Stating that marks registered on the Supplemental Register "must be capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods or services"