18 Cited authorities
Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC
668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 109 times 4 Legal AnalysesHolding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark
In re Cordua Rests., Inc.
823 F.3d 594 (Fed. Cir. 2016) Cited 30 times 7 Legal AnalysesHolding that certain words referring to key aspects of a genus of services were generic for those services
In re Bayer
488 F.3d 960 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Cited 41 times 2 Legal AnalysesEndorsing the use of internet evidence as admissible and competent evidence for evaluating a trademark
Cold War Museum v. Cold War Air Museum
586 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 28 timesHolding that registration per 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b) creates a rebuttable presumption of validity, rebuttal of which requires a preponderance of the evidence showing
In re Steelbuilding.com
415 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 26 times 3 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
Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina
670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982) Cited 58 timesHolding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"
Yamaha Intern. Corp. v. Hoshino Gakki Co.
840 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 46 times 2 Legal AnalysesFinding secondary meaning for shape of guitar head always appearing in advertising and promotional literature
H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. International Ass'n of Fire Chiefs, Inc.
782 F.2d 987 (Fed. Cir. 1986) Cited 47 times 8 Legal AnalysesReversing decision of TTAB that "Fire Chief," as applied to monthly magazine circulated to fire departments, was generic
In re Pennington Seed, Inc.
466 F.3d 1053 (Fed. Cir. 2006) Cited 13 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (“TMEP”) “does not have the force and effect of law”
In re Koninklijke Philips N.V.
Case No.: 17-MC-1681-WVG (S.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2018) Cited 2 timesCase No.: 17-MC-1681-WVG 01-30-2018 In re Ex Parte Application of KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. Applicant. Hon. William V. Gallo United States Magistrate Judge ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) PERMITTING SUBPOENA On December 20, 2017, Applicant Koninklijke Philips N.V. ("Applicant") filed an ex parte Application for an order permitting a subpoena pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1782(a). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1, the Court concludes this matter is suitable
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,616 times 274 Legal AnalysesGranting 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"
Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence
37 C.F.R. § 2.122 Cited 24 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"
Section 2.41 - Proof of distinctiveness under section 2(f)
37 C.F.R. § 2.41 Cited 13 times 4 Legal Analyses(a)For a trademark or service mark - (1)Ownership of prior registration(s). In appropriate cases, ownership of one or more active prior registrations on the Principal Register or under the Trademark Act of 1905 of the same mark may be accepted as prima facie evidence of distinctiveness if the goods or services are sufficiently similar to the goods or services in the application; however, further evidence may be required. (2)Five years substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce. In appropriate
Section 2.128 - Briefs at final hearing
37 C.F.R. § 2.128 Cited 3 timesSetting forth rules for submission of briefs to the TTAB