§

Interpage International, Inc.

87346100 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 6, 2019)
Interpage International, Inc.

12 Cited authorities

  1. Traffix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc.

    532 U.S. 23 (2001)   Cited 585 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the dual-spring design was not protectable because it had a purpose “beyond serving the purpose of informing consumers that the sign stands are made by” the plaintiff

  2. Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co.

    514 U.S. 159 (1995)   Cited 566 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Holding companies may not "inhibit[] legitimate competition" by trademarking desirable features to "put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage"

  3. In re Morton-Norwich Products, Inc.

    671 F.2d 1332 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 108 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that configuration of "Glass Plus" spray-bottle warranted trademark protection

  4. Valu Engineering, Inc. v. Rexnord Corp.

    278 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 57 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a consideration in determining whether a particular product feature is functional is the existence of "advertising materials in which the originator of the design touts the design's utilitarian advantages"

  5. 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

  6. In re Becton, Dickinson & Co.

    675 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 17 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 2011–1111. 2012-04-12 In re BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY. Richard Z. Lehv, Fross, Zelnivk, Lehrman & Zissu, of New York, NY, argued for the appellant. Christina J. Hieber, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, VA, argued for the appellee. With her on the brief was Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor. Of counsel was Amy Nelson. CLEVENGER 4,741,446, 4,991,104, 6,602,206. Cited. Richard Z. Lehv, Fross, Zelnivk, Lehrman & Zissu, of New York, NY, argued for the appellant

  7. 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

  8. In re Bose Corp.

    772 F.2d 866 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 30 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding pentagonal shape of loudspeaker functional where applicant's promotional materials lauded shape as functional part of sound system

  9. Application of Mogen David Wine Corp.

    372 F.2d 539 (C.C.P.A. 1967)   Cited 21 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that applicant's submitted advertisements did not prove that decanter bottle for wine, which had been the subject of a design patent, had acquired secondary meaning

  10. Application of Soccer Sport Supply Company

    507 F.2d 1400 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 6 times

    Patent Appeal No. 74-550. January 9, 1975. Evelyn M. Sommer, New York City, atty. of record, for appellant; Murray Schaffer, New York City, of counsel. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; R.V. Lupo, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. MILLER, Judge. This appeal is from a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, abstracted at 180 USPQ 527 (1973)

  11. 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

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,585 times   272 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"