DesignYour-Course.com, LLC d/b/a Syllabi Solutions

10 Cited authorities

In re Bayer
488 F.3d 960 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Cited 39 times 2 Legal Analyses
Endorsing the use of internet evidence as admissible and competent evidence for evaluating a trademark
Cold War Museum v. Cold War Air Museum
586 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 27 times
Holding that registration per 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b) creates a rebuttable presumption of validity, rebuttal of which requires a preponderance of the evidence showing
Duopross Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd.
695 F.3d 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 23 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that, although the Board may "ascertain the meaning and weight of each of the components that makes up the mark," it "ultimately must consider the mark as a whole and do so in the context of the goods or services at issue"
In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP
373 F.3d 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Cited 30 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts "may weigh the individual components of the mark" to assess its overall distinctiveness
In re Nett Designs, Inc.
236 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Cited 28 times
Finding that prior registrations of marks including the term ULTIMATE "do not conclusively rebut the Board's finding that ULTIMATE is descriptive in the context of this mark"
In re Chamber of Commerce of the United States
675 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 8 times 2 Legal Analyses
No. 2011–1330. 2012-04-3 In re The CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES of America. William M. Merone, Kenyon & Kenyon, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Edward T. Colbert. Christina J. Hieber, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for appellee. With her on the brief were Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor, and Sydney O. Johnson, Jr., Associate Solicitor. Of counsel was Thomas V. Shaw, Associate Solicitor
Application of Abcor Development Corp.
588 F.2d 811 (C.C.P.A. 1978) Cited 36 times 2 Legal Analyses
In Abcor, the question before the court was whether applicant's alleged mark (GASBADGE) was "merely descriptive" within the meaning of § 2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1).
INSTITUT NAT. DES APPELLATIONS v. VINTNERS
958 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 13 times
Affirming finding, on summary judgment, that the term "Chablis" is generic
In re Gyulay
820 F.2d 1216 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 14 times 1 Legal Analyses
Stating that the Board did not err in affirming the examiner's prima facie case that the mark was merely descriptive
Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc.
534 F.2d 915 (C.C.P.A. 1976) Cited 15 times
Holding that the board was not in error in dissecting the marks by considering 38 third party registrations having the suffix "tronics" or "tronix" where the holder of the mark "Tektronix" opposed registration of the mark "Daktronics"

DesignYour-Course.com, LLC d/b/a Syllabi Solutions

10 Cited authorities

Endorsing the use of internet evidence as admissible and competent evidence for evaluating a trademark

Holding that registration per 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b) creates a rebuttable presumption of validity, rebuttal of which requires a preponderance of the evidence showing

Holding that, although the Board may "ascertain the meaning and weight of each of the components that makes up the mark," it "ultimately must consider the mark as a whole and do so in the context of the goods or services at issue"

Holding that courts "may weigh the individual components of the mark" to assess its overall distinctiveness

Finding that prior registrations of marks including the term ULTIMATE "do not conclusively rebut the Board's finding that ULTIMATE is descriptive in the context of this mark"

In Abcor, the question before the court was whether applicant's alleged mark (GASBADGE) was "merely descriptive" within the meaning of § 2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1).

Affirming finding, on summary judgment, that the term "Chablis" is generic

Stating that the Board did not err in affirming the examiner's prima facie case that the mark was merely descriptive

Holding that the board was not in error in dissecting the marks by considering 38 third party registrations having the suffix "tronics" or "tronix" where the holder of the mark "Tektronix" opposed registration of the mark "Daktronics"