§

Health New England, Inc.

86984307 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2019)
Health New England, Inc.

11 Cited authorities

  1. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc.

    424 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 58 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that attorney argument did not demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to avoid summary judgment

  2. 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

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

    906 F.3d 965 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 12 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

  4. Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc.

    901 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 9 times

    2018-1688 08-27-2018 ZHENG CAI, DBA Tai Chi Green Tea Inc., Appellant v. DIAMOND HONG, INC., Appellee Zheng Cai, Vernon Hills, IL, pro se. Jonathan E. Moskin, Foley & Lardner LLP, New York, NY, for appellee. Also represented by Diane Grace Elder, Chicago, IL. Wallach, Circuit Judge. Zheng Cai, Vernon Hills, IL, pro se. Jonathan E. Moskin, Foley & Lardner LLP, New York, NY, for appellee. Also represented by Diane Grace Elder, Chicago, IL. Before Prost, Chief Judge, Wallach and Hughes, Circuit Judges

  5. In re Jobdiva, Inc.

    843 F.3d 936 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 4 times   2 Legal Analyses

    2015-1960 12-12-2016 IN RE: JOBDIVA, INC., Appellant Daniel I. Schloss, Greenberg Traurig LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellant. Also represented by Masahiro Noda. Mary Beth Walker, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for intervenor Michelle K. Lee. Also represented by Thomas W. Krause, Christina Hieber. Stoll, Circuit Judge. Daniel I. Schloss , Greenberg Traurig LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellant. Also represented by Masahiro Noda . Mary

  6. In re Siny Corp.

    920 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

    2018-1077 01-14-2019 IN RE: SINY CORP., Appellant Daniel Kattman, Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c., Milwaukee, WI, for appellant. Also represented by Heidi R. Thole. Thomas W. Krause, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for appellee Andrei Iancu. Also represented by Christina J. Hieber, Mary Beth Walker. Prost, Chief Judge. Daniel Kattman, Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c., Milwaukee, WI, for appellant. Also represented by Heidi R. Thole. Thomas W. Krause

  7. Application of Universal Oil Products Co.

    476 F.2d 653 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal Nos. 8906 and 8933. April 19, 1973. John T. Lanahan, Des Plaines, Ill., of record, for appellant; Sidney W. Russell, Arlington, Va., of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; John W. Dewhirst, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and ALMOND, Senior Judge. RICH, Judge. These consolidated appeals are from decisions of the Patent Office

  8. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,806 times   124 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 2,954 times   96 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

  10. Section 2.56 - Specimens

    37 C.F.R. § 2.56   Cited 18 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) An application under section 1(a) of the Act, an amendment to allege use under § 2.76 , a statement of use under § 2.88 , an affidavit or declaration of continued use or excusable nonuse under § 2.160 , or an affidavit or declaration of use or excusable nonuse under § 7.36 must include one specimen per class showing the mark as actually used in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services identified. When requested by the Office as reasonably necessary to proper examination, additional

  11. 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