§

Elesa S.p.A.

No. 77782897 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2012)
Elesa S.p.A.

10 Cited authorities

  1. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc.

    529 U.S. 205 (2000)   Cited 793 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that fanciful, arbitrary, and suggestive marks are inherently distinctive

  2. In re Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.

    774 F.2d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 61 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "pink" color of insulation was non-functional because it did not affect the quality of insulation in that the color used had no effect on the product's ability to regulate a building's temperature

  3. 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

  4. In re Slokevage

    441 F.3d 957 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 5 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Interpreting Wal-Mart and holding that, where the alleged trade dress is incorporated into the product itself, it amounts to product design

  5. 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"

  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. Plastilite Corporation v. Kassnar Imports

    508 F.2d 824 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that in determining distinctiveness, "it is the association of the mark with a particular source by the ultimate consumers which is to be measured-not [applicant's] intent" in adopting the mark

  8. In re Hehr Manufacturing Co.

    279 F.2d 526 (C.C.P.A. 1960)   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding secondary meaning based upon $112,000 in general advertising expenditures, of which $30,000 directly attributable to the alleged trademark, over ten years

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,599 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"

  10. Section 2.41 - Proof of distinctiveness under section 2(f)

    37 C.F.R. § 2.41   Cited 13 times   4 Legal Analyses

    (a)For a trademark or service mark - (1)Ownership of prior registration(s). In appropriate cases, ownership of one or more active prior registrations on the Principal Register or under the Trademark Act of 1905 of the same mark may be accepted as prima facie evidence of distinctiveness if the goods or services are sufficiently similar to the goods or services in the application; however, further evidence may be required. (2)Five years substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce. In appropriate