§

Hill Country Class 3, LLC

No. 86268898 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2016)
Hill Country Class 3, LLC

17 Cited authorities

  1. Princeton Vanguard, LLC v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc.

    786 F.3d 960 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 33 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that although the "Board is not required to discuss every piece of evidence," it cannot "disregard [evidence] without explanation" or "short-cut its consideration of the factual record before it"

  2. In re Cordua Rests., Inc.

    823 F.3d 594 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 30 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that certain words referring to key aspects of a genus of services were generic for those services

  3. 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”

  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. 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

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

    782 F.2d 987 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 47 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Reversing decision of TTAB that "Fire Chief," as applied to monthly magazine circulated to fire departments, was generic

  7. In re the American Fertility Society

    188 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 23 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an earlier precedential decision is binding precedent on later panels

  8. Magic Wand, Inc. v. RDB, Inc.

    940 F.2d 638 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 33 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that the Lanham Act is clear "that the relevant public for a genericness determination is the purchasing or consuming public"

  9. In re 1800Mattress.Com IP, LLC

    586 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 12 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding "MATTRESS.COM" generic in relation to online retail store services in the field of mattresses was supported by substantial evidence

  10. Octocom Systems v. Houston Computer Services

    918 F.2d 937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 28 times

    No. 90-1196. November 2, 1990. Brian M. Dingman, Law Offices of Joseph S. Iandiorio, Waltham, Mass., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Joseph S. Iandiorio. J. Paul Williamson, Arnold, White Durkee, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before NIES, Chief Judge, ARCHER and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges. NIES, Chief Judge. Octocom Systems, Inc. (OSI), appeals from the final decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark

  11. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,923 times   127 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 1,616 times   275 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 2.71 - Amendments to correct informalities

    37 C.F.R. § 2.71   Cited 12 times   3 Legal Analyses

    The applicant may amend the application during the course of examination, when required by the Office or for other reasons. (a) The applicant may amend the application to clarify or limit, but not to broaden, the identification of goods and/or services or the description of the nature of the collective membership organization. (b) (1) If the verified statement in an application under § 2.33 is unsigned or signed by the wrong party, the applicant may submit a substitute verification. (2) If the verified