Junk Bros. LLC

18 Cited authorities

Abercrombie Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc.
537 F.2d 4 (2d Cir. 1976) Cited 820 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that the term "Safari" is generic for the articles of clothing that comprise the "Safari suit" outfit
Princeton Vanguard, LLC v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc.
786 F.3d 960 (Fed. Cir. 2015) Cited 33 times 6 Legal Analyses
Explaining that although the "Board is not required to discuss every piece of evidence," it cannot "disregard [evidence] without explanation" or "short-cut its consideration of the factual record before it"
In re Cordua Rests., Inc.
823 F.3d 594 (Fed. Cir. 2016) Cited 30 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that certain words referring to key aspects of a genus of services were generic for those services
Beckwith v. Commr. of Patents
252 U.S. 538 (1920) Cited 179 times 1 Legal Analyses
Defining “composite marks” as those which “contain both registerable and nonregisterable matter”
Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS Enterprises LLC
794 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) Cited 29 times 2 Legal Analyses
Determining that TTAB failed to adequately account for evidence of "a fair number of third-party uses" of similar marks by discounting the evidence for lack of "specifics regarding the extent of sales or promotional efforts surrounding the third-party marks"
Royal Crown Co. v. Coca-Cola Co.
892 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2018) Cited 22 times 3 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that indirect evidence, including of "competitive use, evidence that other companies use [a term] in combination with their own . . . marks, third-party registrations and applications for such combined marks," may be relevant for genericness
Duopross Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd.
695 F.3d 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 25 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that, although the Board may "ascertain the meaning and weight of each of the components that makes up the mark," it "ultimately must consider the mark as a whole and do so in the context of the goods or services at issue"
In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, Smith
828 F.2d 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 58 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding applicant's incontestable registration of a service mark for "cash management account" did not automatically entitle applicant to registration of that mark for broader financial services
In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP
373 F.3d 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Cited 30 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts "may weigh the individual components of the mark" to assess its overall distinctiveness
In re Nett Designs, Inc.
236 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Cited 28 times
Finding that prior registrations of marks including the term ULTIMATE "do not conclusively rebut the Board's finding that ULTIMATE is descriptive in the context of this mark"

Junk Bros. LLC

18 Cited authorities

Holding that the term "Safari" is generic for the articles of clothing that comprise the "Safari suit" outfit

Explaining that although the "Board is not required to discuss every piece of evidence," it cannot "disregard [evidence] without explanation" or "short-cut its consideration of the factual record before it"

Holding that certain words referring to key aspects of a genus of services were generic for those services

Defining “composite marks” as those which “contain both registerable and nonregisterable matter”

Determining that TTAB failed to adequately account for evidence of "a fair number of third-party uses" of similar marks by discounting the evidence for lack of "specifics regarding the extent of sales or promotional efforts surrounding the third-party marks"

Recognizing that indirect evidence, including of "competitive use, evidence that other companies use [a term] in combination with their own . . . marks, third-party registrations and applications for such combined marks," may be relevant for genericness

Holding that, although the Board may "ascertain the meaning and weight of each of the components that makes up the mark," it "ultimately must consider the mark as a whole and do so in the context of the goods or services at issue"

Holding applicant's incontestable registration of a service mark for "cash management account" did not automatically entitle applicant to registration of that mark for broader financial services

Holding that courts "may weigh the individual components of the mark" to assess its overall distinctiveness

Finding that prior registrations of marks including the term ULTIMATE "do not conclusively rebut the Board's finding that ULTIMATE is descriptive in the context of this mark"