§

Elevator Safety Company

No. 76507677 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2007)
Elevator Safety Company

15 Cited authorities

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

    529 U.S. 205 (2000)   Cited 774 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that fanciful, arbitrary, and suggestive marks are inherently distinctive

  2. Traffix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc.

    532 U.S. 23 (2001)   Cited 584 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the dual-spring design was not protectable because it had a purpose “beyond serving the purpose of informing consumers that the sign stands are made by” the plaintiff

  3. Braun Inc. v. Dynamics Corp. of America

    975 F.2d 815 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 171 times
    Holding that " claim of trade dress infringement fails if secondary meaning did not exist before the infringement began" and placing the burden of proof on the plaintiff

  4. 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

  5. Valu Engineering, Inc. v. Rexnord Corp.

    278 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 57 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a consideration in determining whether a particular product feature is functional is the existence of "advertising materials in which the originator of the design touts the design's utilitarian advantages"

  6. In re Steelbuilding.com

    415 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 26 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Affirming the refusal of the Patent and Trademark Office to register the mark STEELBUILDING.COM, because the mark was descriptive of online services for the design of steel buildings, and lacked secondary meaning

  7. 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

  8. Petersen Mfg. Co. v. Central Purchasing

    740 F.2d 1541 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 48 times
    Holding that summary judgment on grounds of obviousness did not require a supporting expert's opinion

  9. In re Boston Beer Co. Ltd. Partnership

    198 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 14 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the claim "The Best Beer in America" amounted to mere puffery

  10. 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

  11. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,802 times   123 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 1,582 times   267 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"