§

Hiromichi Wada

No. 74657464 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 6, 1998)
Hiromichi Wada

8 Cited authorities

  1. In re Nat. Data Corp.

    753 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 70 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"

  2. In re Loew's Theatres, Inc.

    769 F.2d 764 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 26 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding incontestable mark DURANGO for cigars insufficient to establish distinctiveness of DURANGO for chewing tobacco

  3. 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

  4. In re Nantucket, Inc.

    677 F.2d 95 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 28 times
    Describing this legislative history

  5. In re Budge Mfg. Co., Inc.

    857 F.2d 773 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Appeal No. 87-1541. September 21, 1988. Eugene E. Renz, Jr., Eugene E. Renz, Jr., P.C., Media, Pa., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was John S. Munday. Albin F. Drost, Asst. Sol., Com'r of Patents and Trademarks, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol. and Fred E. McKelvey, Deputy Solicitor. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before NIES and BISSELL, Circuit Judges, and NICHOLS, Senior Circuit Judge. NIES, Circuit Judge.

  6. In re Societe Generale Des Eaux Minerales De Vittel S.A.

    824 F.2d 957 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 9 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. 87-1127. July 14, 1987. Paul F. Kilmer, Mason, Fenwick Lawrence, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Albin F. Drost, Office of the Solicitor, Arlington, Va., for appellee. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH and BISSELL, Circuit Judges. RICH, Circuit Judge. This appeal is from the 30 September 1986 decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (board), 1 USPQ2d

  7. Hyde Park Clothes v. Hyde Park Fashions

    204 F.2d 223 (2d Cir. 1953)   Cited 31 times

    No. 24, Docket 22342. Argued January 7, 1953. Decided April 29, 1953. Truman A. Herron, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant, Wood, Herron Evans, Cincinnati, Ohio, and Hays, Wolf, Schwabacher, Sklar Epstein, New York City, of counsel. Oscar Levine, New York City, for appellee. Before SWAN, Chief Judge, and CLARK and FRANK, Circuit Judges. SWAN, Chief Judge. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment dismissing its complaint on the merits, after a trial, in a suit charging infringement of a registered

  8. R. Neumann Co. v. Overseas Shipments

    326 F.2d 786 (C.C.P.A. 1964)   Cited 6 times
    In R. Neumann Co. v. Overseas Shipments, Inc., 326 F.2d 786, 51 CCPA 946, 140 USPQ 276 (1964), a similar argument was made that the mark DURAHYDE on shoes was not deceptive as an indication of leather because of tags affixed to the shoes proclaiming the legend "Outwears leather.