§

Kenneth A. Barton II

No. 75915192 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 6, 2002)
Kenneth A. Barton II

14 Cited authorities

  1. Armstrong Co. v. Nu-Enamel Corp.

    305 U.S. 315 (1938)   Cited 344 times
    Holding that registration of a mark "does not create any substantive rights in the registrant"

  2. 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"

  3. Standard Paint Co. v. Trinidad Asph. Co.

    220 U.S. 446 (1911)   Cited 128 times
    Holding that a trademark in "Ruberoid"—a misspelling of "Rubberoid"—was descriptive and did not "become arbitrary by being misspelled"

  4. Application of Abcor Development Corp.

    588 F.2d 811 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 36 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Abcor, the question before the court was whether applicant's alleged mark (GASBADGE) was "merely descriptive" within the meaning of § 2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1).

  5. In re Gyulay

    820 F.2d 1216 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 14 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the Board did not err in affirming the examiner's prima facie case that the mark was merely descriptive

  6. In re Hacot-Colombier

    105 F.3d 616 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 4 times

    No. 96-1240. January 21, 1997. Appealed from: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Andrew J. Gray, IV, Jacobson, Price, Holman Stern, P.L.L.C., of Washington, DC, argued, for appellant. With him on the brief was Simor L. Moskowitz. Albin F. Drost, Deputy Solicitor, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Arlington, VA, argued, for the Commissioner. With him on the brief were Nancy J. Linck, Solicitor, and Nancy C. Slutter, Associate Solicitor. Of counsel was Kevin

  7. Keller Products v. Rubber Linings Corp.

    213 F.2d 382 (7th Cir. 1954)   Cited 40 times

    No. 11067. May 12, 1954. Clarence E. Threedy, Edward C. Threedy, Ben Copple, Chicago, Ill., for appellant. Lloyd C. Root, Marzall, Johnson, Cook Root, Chicago, Ill., Oscar C. Limbach, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellee. Before DUFFY, LINDLEY and SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judges. DUFFY, Circuit Judge. This is an action for trade-mark infringement and unfair competition. The trial court found the issues favorable to plaintiff, entered judgment accordingly, and awarded to plaintiff $1,500 as punitive damages

  8. Application of Quik-Print Copy Shops, Inc.

    616 F.2d 523 (C.C.P.A. 1980)   Cited 9 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Appeal No. 79-613. March 13, 1980. Arland T. Stein, Pittsburgh, Pa., attorney of record for appellant; Frederick H. Colen and Frederick L. Tolhurst, Pittsburgh, Pa., of counsel. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks; Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Donald R. Fraser, Vincent L. Barker, Jr. and Lynda E. Roesch of Wilson, Fraser, Barker Clemens, Toledo, Ohio, attorneys of record for Quickprint, Inc. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal

  9. Norsan Products, Inc. v. R.F. Schuele Corp.

    286 F. Supp. 12 (E.D. Wis. 1968)   Cited 3 times

    No. 64-C-245. June 28, 1968. David M. Hecht, Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiff. Patrick T. Sheedy, Milwaukee, Wis., for defendant. OPINION REYNOLDS, District Judge. This is an action for an injunction against the infringement of a trade-mark. No damages are sought. Undisputed Facts Plaintiff is an Ohio corporation with its principal office in Milwaukee and produces a liquid stain remover called "Kuf 'N Kolar." This stain remover has been manufactured continuously since July 19, 1958, under the mark

  10. King-Kup Candies, Inc. v. King Candy Co.

    288 F.2d 944 (C.C.P.A. 1961)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that KING'S and KING-KUP share a dominant root and, thus, are confusingly similar

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,615 times   274 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"

  12. Section 2.51 - Drawing required

    37 C.F.R. § 2.51   Cited 13 times
    Allowing a typed drawing for marks consisting of words that are not depicted in special form