§

Grumpy Cat Limited

No. 85838010 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2018)
Grumpy Cat Limited

33 Cited authorities

  1. Hana Fin., Inc. v. Hana Bank

    574 U.S. 418 (2015)   Cited 94 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Abrogating prior decisions holding this was a legal question

  2. Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, Inc. v. Pussycat Cinema, Ltd.

    604 F.2d 200 (2d Cir. 1979)   Cited 335 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an injunction pursuant to the Lanham Act was not a prior restraint because trademark infringement implicated property rights, not speech rights

  3. Pirone v. MacMillan, Inc.

    894 F.2d 579 (2d Cir. 1990)   Cited 234 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial use of photographs of Babe Ruth did not indicate origin or make representation of sponsorship and granting summary judgment for defendants where plaintiff devisees essentially asserted trademark in Babe Ruth's image and likeness

  4. Braun Inc. v. Dynamics Corp. of America

    975 F.2d 815 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 175 times
    Holding that " claim of trade dress infringement fails if secondary meaning did not exist before the infringement began" and placing the burden of proof on the plaintiff

  5. Degidio v. West Group Corp.

    355 F.3d 506 (6th Cir. 2004)   Cited 47 times
    Upholding finding that "lawoffices.net" lacked secondary meaning without evidence of consumer survey or market share and with evidence of $2,500 in advertising costs and $200 in revenue

  6. 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

  7. In re Cordua Rests., Inc.

    823 F.3d 594 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 27 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that certain words referring to key aspects of a genus of services were generic for those services

  8. In re Nett Designs, Inc.

    236 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 28 times
    Finding that prior registrations of marks including the term ULTIMATE "do not conclusively rebut the Board's finding that ULTIMATE is descriptive in the context of this mark"

  9. Yamaha Intern. Corp. v. Hoshino Gakki Co.

    840 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 46 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding secondary meaning for shape of guitar head always appearing in advertising and promotional literature

  10. In re Chamber of Commerce of the United States

    675 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 8 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. 2011–1330. 2012-04-3 In re The CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES of America. William M. Merone, Kenyon & Kenyon, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Edward T. Colbert. Christina J. Hieber, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for appellee. With her on the brief were Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor, and Sydney O. Johnson, Jr., Associate Solicitor. Of counsel was Thomas V. Shaw, Associate Solicitor

  11. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,886 times   126 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,600 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"

  13. 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

  14. Section 2.142 - Time and manner of ex parte appeals

    37 C.F.R. § 2.142   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) An appeal filed under the provisions of § 2.141(a) from the final refusal of an application must be filed within the time provided in § 2.62(a) . (2) An appeal filed under the provisions of § 2.141(b) from an expungement or reexamination proceeding must be filed within three months from the issue date of the final Office action. (3) An appeal is taken by filing a notice of appeal, as prescribed in § 2.126 , and paying the appeal fee. (b) (1) The brief of appellant shall be filed within sixty