§

General Mills IP Holdings II, LLC

No. 86757390 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2017)
General Mills IP Holdings II, LLC

26 Cited authorities

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

    529 U.S. 205 (2000)   Cited 770 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that fanciful, arbitrary, and suggestive marks are inherently distinctive

  2. Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co.

    514 U.S. 159 (1995)   Cited 563 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Holding companies may not "inhibit[] legitimate competition" by trademarking desirable features to "put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage"

  3. Amazing Spaces, Inc. v. Metro Mini Storage

    608 F.3d 225 (5th Cir. 2010)   Cited 274 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a five-point star set within a circle was not inherently distinctive because it does not automatically indicate its association with the plaintiff self-storage business.

  4. Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC

    668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 104 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark

  5. E.T. Browne Drug v. Cococare

    538 F.3d 185 (3d Cir. 2008)   Cited 91 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that use of the phrase “Palmer's Cocoa Butter Formula” was not probative on the question of whether the phrase “Cocoa Butter Formula” had acquired secondary meaning

  6. Erbe Elektromedizin GmbH & ERBE USA v. Canady Technology LLC

    629 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 60 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the color blue for endoscopic probes was functional because its contrast with human tissue made the probe more visible through an endoscopic camera

  7. L.D. Kichler Co. v. Davoil, Inc.

    192 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 51 times
    Holding that “any” use by third parties does not preclude an applicant's use from being substantially exclusive

  8. T-Mobile US, Inc. v. Aio Wireless LLC

    991 F. Supp. 2d 888 (S.D. Tex. 2014)   Cited 28 times
    Finding that "modest variations in shades of magenta due to different advertising or promotional materials" did not prevent T-Mobile's magenta from acquiring trademark protection

  9. In re Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.

    774 F.2d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 61 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "pink" color of insulation was non-functional because it did not affect the quality of insulation in that the color used had no effect on the product's ability to regulate a building's temperature

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

    797 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 13 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discounting advertising expenditures concerning FISH FRY PRODUCTS where the evidence relied on included ads promoting another mark

  11. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,785 times   123 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 2,943 times   95 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,577 times   259 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"

  14. Section 1057 - Certificates of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1057   Cited 1,019 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Providing that a certificate of registration is prima facie evidence of an owner's right to use the mark