§

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

No. 92053001 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 6, 2017)
Frito-Lay North America, Inc. v. Princeton Vanguard, LLC

42 Cited authorities

  1. Kellogg Co. v. Nat. Biscuit Co.

    305 U.S. 111 (1938)   Cited 549 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Kellogg's sharing in the goodwill of the unprotected "Shredded Wheat" market was "not unfair"

  2. Thomas Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp.

    138 F.3d 277 (7th Cir. 1998)   Cited 172 times
    Finding that the plaintiff's advertising that prominently featured the shape of the product could function to draw consumers' attention to the shape and to associate it with the plaintiff

  3. Union Carbide Corp. v. Ever-Ready Inc.

    531 F.2d 366 (7th Cir. 1976)   Cited 307 times
    Holding that the defendants' suddenly changing the name of one of its own products to include the plaintiff's mark created confusion and defeated a laches defense even after the defendants had been distributing the plaintiff's products that were labeled with that mark for nineteen years

  4. Zatarains, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smokehouse, Inc.

    698 F.2d 786 (5th Cir. 1983)   Cited 166 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court's finding of secondary meaning was not clearly erroneous where Zatarain's sold 916,385 cases of Fish–Fri between 1964 and 1979

  5. Miller Brewing Co. v. Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co.

    605 F.2d 990 (7th Cir. 1979)   Cited 141 times
    Holding that a relaxed concept of finality is acceptable for collateral estoppel

  6. Schwan's IP, LLC v. Kraft Pizza Co.

    460 F.3d 971 (8th Cir. 2006)   Cited 48 times
    Holding that survey evidence concerning the term "Brick Oven" was irrelevant because the designation was "commonly used" before the use by either party

  7. 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"

  8. In re Pacer Technology

    338 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 46 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 02-1602. DECIDED: August 4, 2003. Appeal from the Court of Appeals, Gajarsa, Circuit Judge. Thomas E. Schatzel, Law Offices of Thomas E. Schatzel, of Los Gatos, California, argued for appellant. Raymond T. Chen, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, Virginia, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were John M. Whealan, Solicitor; and Cynthia C. Lynch, Associate Solicitor. Before LOURIE, GAJARSA, and LINN, Circuit Judges. GAJARSA

  9. In re Bayer

    488 F.3d 960 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 39 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Endorsing the use of internet evidence as admissible and competent evidence for evaluating a trademark

  10. In re Cordua Rests., Inc.

    823 F.3d 594 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 25 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that certain words referring to key aspects of a genus of services were generic for those services

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,585 times   271 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"

  12. Section 23 - Suits by United States; subpoenas for witnesses

    15 U.S.C. § 23   Cited 23 times   2 Legal Analyses

    In any suit, action, or proceeding brought by or on behalf of the United States subpoenas for witnesses who are required to attend a court of the United States in any judicial district in any case, civil or criminal, arising under the antitrust laws may run into any other district: Provided, That in civil cases no writ of subpoena shall issue for witnesses living out of the district in which the court is held at a greater distance than one hundred miles from the place of holding the same without

  13. 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"

  14. Section 2.71 - Amendments to correct informalities

    37 C.F.R. § 2.71   Cited 12 times   3 Legal Analyses

    The applicant may amend the application during the course of examination, when required by the Office or for other reasons. (a) The applicant may amend the application to clarify or limit, but not to broaden, the identification of goods and/or services or the description of the nature of the collective membership organization. (b) (1) If the verified statement in an application under § 2.33 is unsigned or signed by the wrong party, the applicant may submit a substitute verification. (2) If the verified

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

    37 C.F.R. § 2.41   Cited 11 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