§

G2 Turftools, Inc.

87852060 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2021)
G2 Turftools, Inc.

22 Cited authorities

  1. Permanent v. Lasting

    543 U.S. 111 (2004)   Cited 334 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding defense available even where likelihood of confusion established

  2. Converse, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n

    907 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 39 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding party must prove design acquired secondary meaning before first infringement

  3. In re Bayer

    488 F.3d 960 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 40 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Endorsing the use of internet evidence as admissible and competent evidence for evaluating a trademark

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

    892 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 21 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

  5. Duopross Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd.

    695 F.3d 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 25 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, although the Board may "ascertain the meaning and weight of each of the components that makes up the mark," it "ultimately must consider the mark as a whole and do so in the context of the goods or services at issue"

  6. In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp.

    240 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 38 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that 1–888–M–A–T–T–R–E–S–S “immediately conveys the impressions that a service relating to mattresses is available by calling the telephone number”

  7. Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Products, Inc.

    293 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 35 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that product marks, ACOUSTIC WAVE and WAVE, were famous in addition to their house mark, BOSE

  8. Real Foods Pty Ltd. v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc.

    906 F.3d 965 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 14 times   1 Legal Analyses

    2017-1959, 2017-2009 09-21-2018 REAL FOODS PTY LTD., Appellant v. FRITO-LAY NORTH AMERICA, INC., Cross-Appellant Jeanne M. Hamburg, Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, PA, New York, NY, argued for appellant. Also represented by Stephanie Spangler ; Kelly Watkins, Allentown, PA. William G. Barber, Pirkey Barber LLP, Austin, TX, argued for cross-appellant. Also represented by Tyson David Smith, David Armendariz. Wallach, Circuit Judge. Jeanne M. Hamburg, Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, PA, New York, NY, argued

  9. In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP

    373 F.3d 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 30 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts "may weigh the individual components of the mark" to assess its overall distinctiveness

  10. In re La. Fish Fry Prods., Ltd.

    797 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 15 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discounting advertising expenditures concerning FISH FRY PRODUCTS where the evidence relied on included ads promoting another mark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,607 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"

  12. 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