§

Donald S. Dowden

No. 75714606 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2003)
Donald S. Dowden

13 Cited authorities

  1. Viam Corp. v. Iowa Export-Import Trading Co.

    84 F.3d 424 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 153 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that personal jurisdiction exists where "according to their own submission to this court, [the defendants] have initiated a suit seeking to enforce the same patent that is the subject of this suit against other parties, unrelated to this action, in the same district court"

  2. Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm LTD

    52 F.3d 1043 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 99 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that even though the defendant's experts reproduced a prior art method “thirteen times and each time they made [the claimed] crystals,” the patentee's chemists twice produced different crystals from the same method, thus precluding inherency

  3. Hamilton Shoe Co. v. Wolf Brothers

    240 U.S. 251 (1916)   Cited 221 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, as a matter of law, a trademark used on shoes, “The American Girl,” was not a “geographical or descriptive term”

  4. Mars v. Kabushiki-Kaisha Nippon Conlux

    24 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 60 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that no federal question or supplemental jurisdiction existed

  5. International Nutrition Co. v. Horphag Research Ltd.

    257 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 41 times
    Finding lack of standing where defendant co-owner did not voluntarily join

  6. U.S. Valves, Inc. v. Dray

    190 F.3d 811 (7th Cir. 1999)   Cited 21 times
    Stating that under Indiana law, injury is an element of breach of contract claim

  7. 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).

  8. BAYER AG v. CARLSBAD TECHNOLOGY, INC

    298 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 6 times
    Collecting authority for the proposition that Skidmore deference is appropriate for the PTO's interpretations of its implementing regulations

  9. 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

  10. 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"

  11. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,914 times   126 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,610 times   274 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 2.142 - Time and manner of ex parte appeals

    37 C.F.R. § 2.142   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) An appeal filed under the provisions of § 2.141(a) from the final refusal of an application must be filed within the time provided in § 2.62(a) . (2) An appeal filed under the provisions of § 2.141(b) from an expungement or reexamination proceeding must be filed within three months from the issue date of the final Office action. (3) An appeal is taken by filing a notice of appeal, as prescribed in § 2.126 , and paying the appeal fee. (b) (1) The brief of appellant shall be filed within sixty