§

Essiac Products, Inc. v. Essiac Products Services, Inc.

CANC (T.T.A.B. Apr. 5, 2019)
Essiac Products, Inc. v. Essiac Products Services, Inc.

15 Cited authorities

  1. Princeton Vanguard, LLC v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc.

    786 F.3d 960 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 30 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that although the "Board is not required to discuss every piece of evidence," it cannot "disregard [evidence] without explanation" or "short-cut its consideration of the factual record before it"

  2. Ritchie v. Simpson

    170 F.3d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 48 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”

  3. Royal Crown Co. v. Coca-Cola Co.

    892 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 20 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that indirect evidence, including of "competitive use, evidence that other companies use [a term] in combination with their own . . . marks, third-party registrations and applications for such combined marks," may be relevant for genericness

  4. Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co.

    753 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 13 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that appellant demonstrated entitlement to a "statutory cause of action" under the Lanham Act

  5. Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina

    670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 57 times
    Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

  6. In re Northland Aluminum Products, Inc.

    777 F.2d 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 49 times
    Holding "[e]vidence of the public's understanding of term," for purposes of establishing if mark is descriptive, "may be obtained from any competent source, including .^.^. dictionaries"

  7. H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. International Ass'n of Fire Chiefs, Inc.

    782 F.2d 987 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 44 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Reversing decision of TTAB that "Fire Chief," as applied to monthly magazine circulated to fire departments, was generic

  8. Magic Wand, Inc. v. RDB, Inc.

    940 F.2d 638 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 32 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that the Lanham Act is clear "that the relevant public for a genericness determination is the purchasing or consuming public"

  9. In re Reed

    482 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 13 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Board properly considered websites containing "lawyer.com" or "lawyers.com" in their domain names to determine what the relevant public would understand LAWYERS.COM to mean

  10. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Bell & Howell Document Management Products Co.

    994 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 20 times
    Giving Chevron deference to the TTAB's interpretation of the Lanham Act

  11. Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.122   Cited 23 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing that in inter partes proceeding, "[t]he allegation in an application for registration, or in a registration, of a date of use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant" but, rather, "a date of use of a mark must be established by competent evidence"

  12. Section 2.126 - Form of submissions to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

    37 C.F.R. § 2.126   Cited 1 times

    (a) Submissions must be made to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board via ESTTA. (1) Text in an electronic submission must be filed in at least 11-point type and double-spaced. (2) Exhibits pertaining to an electronic submission must be made electronically as an attachment to the submission and must be clear and legible. (b) In the event that ESTTA is unavailable due to technical problems, or when extraordinary circumstances are present, submissions may be filed in paper form. All submissions in paper

  13. Section 2.119 - Service and signing

    37 C.F.R. § 2.119   Cited 1 times   2 Legal Analyses

    (a) Except for the notice of opposition or the petition to cancel, every submission filed in the Office in inter partes cases, including notices of appeal to the courts, must be served upon the other party or parties. Proof of such service must be made before the submission will be considered by the Office. A statement signed by the attorney or other authorized representative, attached to or appearing on the original submission when filed, clearly stating the date and manner in which service was

  14. Section 2.194 - Identification of trademark application or registration

    37 C.F.R. § 2.194

    (a) No correspondence relating to a trademark application should be filed prior to receipt of the application serial number. (b) (1) A letter about a trademark application should identify the serial number, the name of the applicant, and the mark. (2) A letter about a registered trademark should identify the registration number, the name of the registrant, and the mark. 37 C.F.R. §2.194 Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations. Part