§

Frankish Enterprises Ltd.

No. 85494703 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2015)
Frankish Enterprises Ltd.

10 Cited authorities

  1. Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc.

    505 U.S. 763 (1992)   Cited 1,963 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to establish a claim for trade dress infringement, secondary meaning, non-functionality and likelihood of confusion must all be shown

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

    529 U.S. 205 (2000)   Cited 776 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that fanciful, arbitrary, and suggestive marks are inherently distinctive

  3. Seabrook Foods v. Bar-Well Foods LTD

    568 F.2d 1342 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 98 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Setting forth analysis governing inherent distinctiveness of design marks

  4. In re Chippendales USA, Inc.

    622 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 22 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that whether the trade dress was "a common basic shape or design" was "inapplicable" because "there has been no showing that the [trade dress] is common generally"

  5. Best Cellars, Inc. v. Wine Made Simple, Inc.

    320 F. Supp. 2d 60 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)   Cited 19 times
    Concluding that interior decor is not product design and should be analyzed under the product packaging standard for inherent distinctiveness

  6. In re Messina v. Hudson News Company

    SSD 49 (N.Y. Nov. 17, 2011)

    SSD 49. November 17, 2011. Chief Judge Lippman took no part. Appeal dismissed without costs, by the Court sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.

  7. In re DC Comics, Inc.

    689 F.2d 1042 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 20 times
    In DC Comics, the court thus held that the aesthetic aspects of the applicant's drawings did not preclude registrability.

  8. Application of Swift Co.

    223 F.2d 950 (C.C.P.A. 1955)   Cited 14 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6141. July 1, 1955. Roy G. Story, Chicago, Ill., Earl G. Spiker, Washington, D.C., and Edward C. Vandenburgh, Chicago, Ill., for appellant. E.L. Reynolds, Washington, D.C. (Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before O'CONNELL, Acting C.J., and JOHNSON, WORLEY, COLE, and JACKSON, retired, Judges. COLE, Judge. The Examiner-in-Chief of the United States Patent Office, acting for the Commissioner of Patents, has held that appellant's alleged

  9. Application of E.J. Brach Sons

    256 F.2d 325 (C.C.P.A. 1958)   Cited 8 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6374. June 18, 1958. Cromwell, Greist Warden, Chicago, Ill. (Fred S. Lockwood, Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C., for Commissioner of Patents. Before JOHNSON, Chief Judge, and O'CONNELL, WORLEY, and RICH, Associate Judges. JOHNSON, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Assistant Commissioner of Patents, 112 U.S.P.Q. 267, affirming the decision of the Examiner of Trademarks which refused registration of applicant's alleged

  10. Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 2,953 times   96 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark