§

Joyce K. Thomas v. Chicago Basketball League Corporation

91228767 (T.T.A.B. May. 1, 2019)
Joyce K. Thomas v. Chicago Basketball League Corporation

14 Cited authorities

  1. Sengoku Works Ltd. v. RMC International, Ltd.

    96 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 230 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Applying the manufacturer-distributor paradigm to a trademark dispute between Sengoku (who manufactured heaters) and RMC (who arranged for retailer purchases), even though "Sengoku sold the heaters to an independent trading company, Zenith & Co., who then sold them to RMC"

  2. Ritchie v. Simpson

    170 F.3d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 48 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”

  3. Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co.

    753 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 13 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that appellant demonstrated entitlement to a "statutory cause of action" under the Lanham Act

  4. Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina

    670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 57 times
    Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

  5. Parham v. Pepsico, Inc.

    927 F. Supp. 177 (E.D.N.C. 1995)   Cited 20 times
    Finding the term "crystal" not copyrightable

  6. Application of Deister Concentrator Company

    289 F.2d 496 (C.C.P.A. 1961)   Cited 66 times
    Rejecting the need to consider advertising "gimmicks" designed to acquaint the public with a mark that is incapable of acquiring secondary meaning

  7. Holiday Inn v. Holiday Inns, Inc.

    534 F.2d 312 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that the USPTO had properly limited a national chain's marks to a particular geographic area on the basis of a district court's judgment to that effect

  8. In re Wella A.G

    787 F.2d 1549 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 9 times

    Appeal No. 85-2397. April 1, 1986. Bruce E. Lilling, Lilling Greenspan, White Plains, N.Y., argued, for appellant. Helen R. Wendel, Trademark Examining Atty., U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Arlington, Va., argued, for appellee. With her on brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol. and Fred E. McKelvey, Deputy Sol. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before FRIEDMAN, DAVIS and NIES, Circuit Judges. FRIEDMAN, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from

  9. Chien Ming Huang v. Tzu Wei Chen Food Co.

    849 F.2d 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trademark is void when the application was filed in the name of an entity that did not own the mark.

  10. 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

  11. Section 1055 - Use by related companies affecting validity and registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1055   Cited 149 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Providing that use by related company inures to benefit of registrant

  12. Section 1063 - Opposition to registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1063   Cited 146 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Identifying "dilution by blurring ... under section 1125(c) as a permissible grounds for opposition to a registration"

  13. Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.122   Cited 23 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing 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"

  14. 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