§

Gridiron Enterprises, Inc.

EX (T.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 1997)
Gridiron Enterprises, Inc.

15 Cited authorities

  1. Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.

    434 U.S. 1025 (1978)   Cited 236 times
    Rejecting admissibility of these same OSHA regulations offered for the same purpose of putting the duty to safeguard multi-purpose presses on the employer

  2. Miller Brewing Co. v. G. Heileman Brewing Co.

    561 F.2d 75 (7th Cir. 1977)   Cited 157 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "light" and "lite" are generic adjectives for beer and opining that "[o]therwise a manufacturer could remove a common descriptive word from the public domain by investing his goods with an additional quality, thus gaining the exclusive right to call his wine `rose,' his whisky `blended,' or his bread `white'"

  3. CES Publishing Corp. v. St. Regis Publications, Inc.

    531 F.2d 11 (2d Cir. 1975)   Cited 95 times
    Holding that "Consumer Electronics," as the name of a magazine in that industry, is generic

  4. In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, Smith

    828 F.2d 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 58 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding applicant's incontestable registration of a service mark for "cash management account" did not automatically entitle applicant to registration of that mark for broader financial services

  5. 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"

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

    782 F.2d 987 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 46 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Reversing decision of TTAB that "Fire Chief," as applied to monthly magazine circulated to fire departments, was generic

  7. 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"

  8. Application of Abcor Development Corp.

    588 F.2d 811 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 36 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Abcor, the question before the court was whether applicant's alleged mark (GASBADGE) was "merely descriptive" within the meaning of § 2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1).

  9. B.V.D. Licensing Corp. v. Body Action Design

    846 F.2d 727 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 22 times
    Relying on fourteen registrations issued between 1906 to 1983 and stating that dictionaries defined "B.V.D." as a trademark used for underwear

  10. Loglan Institute v. Logical Language Group

    962 F.2d 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that it is "well settled" that a TTAB decision "must be accepted as controlling upon a finding of fact . . . unless the contrary is established by testimony which in character and amount carries thorough conviction"

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,610 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"