13 Cited authorities
In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp.
240 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Cited 38 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding 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”
In re Steelbuilding.com
415 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 26 times 2 Legal AnalysesAffirming the refusal of the Patent and Trademark Office to register the mark STEELBUILDING.COM, because the mark was descriptive of online services for the design of steel buildings, and lacked secondary meaning
In re Northland Aluminum Products, Inc.
777 F.2d 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1985) Cited 49 timesHolding "[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"
H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. International Ass'n of Fire Chiefs, Inc.
782 F.2d 987 (Fed. Cir. 1986) Cited 46 times 8 Legal AnalysesReversing decision of TTAB that "Fire Chief," as applied to monthly magazine circulated to fire departments, was generic
In re Reed
482 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Cited 14 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that the Board properly considered websites containing "lawyer.com" or "lawyers.com" in their domain names to determine what the relevant public would understand LAWYERS.COM to mean
Magic Wand, Inc. v. RDB, Inc.
940 F.2d 638 (Fed. Cir. 1991) Cited 32 times 1 Legal AnalysesExplaining that the Lanham Act is clear "that the relevant public for a genericness determination is the purchasing or consuming public"
Octocom Systems v. Houston Computer Services
918 F.2d 937 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 28 timesNo. 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
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Bell & Howell Document Management Products Co.
994 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1993) Cited 21 timesGiving Chevron deference to the TTAB's interpretation of the Lanham Act
Roselux Chemical Co. v. Parsons Ammonia Co.
299 F.2d 855 (C.C.P.A. 1962) Cited 32 timesHolding that $3,000,000 in sales in one year was insufficient to establish secondary meaning
J. Kohnstam, Ltd. v. Louis Marx and Company
280 F.2d 437 (C.C.P.A. 1960) Cited 26 times 1 Legal AnalysesPatent Appeal No. 6503. June 29, 1960. Abraham A. Saffitz, Washington, D.C. (Emanuel R. Posnack, New York City, of counsel), for appellant. James Franklin, New York City (Maxwell James, New York City, of counsel), for appellees. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Associate Judges, and Judge C. WILLIAM KRAFT, Jr. United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'Connell, pursuant to provisions of Section 292(d)
Rule 34 - Producing Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Tangible Things, or Entering onto Land, for Inspection and Other Purposes
Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 Cited 13,762 times 155 Legal AnalysesFinding that the rules related to electronic discovery were "not meant to create a routine right of direct access to a party's electronic information system, although such access may be justified in some circumstances."
Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence
37 C.F.R. § 2.122 Cited 23 times 1 Legal AnalysesProviding that in inter partes proceeding, "[t]he allegation in an application for registration, or in a registration, of a date of use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant" but, rather, "a date of use of a mark must be established by competent evidence"