§

Kohr Brothers, Inc.

No. 85430114 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2017)
Kohr Brothers, Inc.

7 Cited authorities

  1. In re Sones

    590 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 11 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a picture is not a mandatory requirement for a website-based specimen of use" and disapproving of the "rigid, bright-line rule" the PTO applied

  2. Lands' End, Inc. v. Manback

    797 F. Supp. 511 (E.D. Va. 1992)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Civ. A. No. 92-0715-A. July 31, 1992 Lawrence Jay Gotts, Kirkland Ellis, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff. Richard Cullen, U.S. Atty., E.D.Va., Richmond, Va., Richard Parker, Asst. U.S. Atty., Alexandria, for defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION CLAUDE HILTON, Chief Judge This matter came before the court on July 16, 1992 on cross motions for summary judgment. Both parties agree that no material facts are in dispute and the court should decide this case on the summary judgment motions. The plaintiff, Lands'

  3. Powermatics, Inc. v. Globe Roofing Products

    341 F.2d 127 (C.C.P.A. 1965)   Cited 16 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7281. February 11, 1965. Burgess, Dinklage Sprung, New York City (Arnold Sprung, New York City, of counsel) for appellant. Robert C. Williams, D.D. Allegretti, Chicago, Ill., for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. WORLEY, Chief Judge. Powermatics appeals from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board awarding priority to Globe, senior party, in a trademark interference between Globe's Registration No. 704,179 for "PANELUME"

  4. Application of Universal Oil Products Co.

    476 F.2d 653 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal Nos. 8906 and 8933. April 19, 1973. John T. Lanahan, Des Plaines, Ill., of record, for appellant; Sidney W. Russell, Arlington, Va., of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; John W. Dewhirst, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and ALMOND, Senior Judge. RICH, Judge. These consolidated appeals are from decisions of the Patent Office

  5. 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

  6. Section 2.56 - Specimens

    37 C.F.R. § 2.56   Cited 18 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) An application under section 1(a) of the Act, an amendment to allege use under § 2.76 , a statement of use under § 2.88 , an affidavit or declaration of continued use or excusable nonuse under § 2.160 , or an affidavit or declaration of use or excusable nonuse under § 7.36 must include one specimen per class showing the mark as actually used in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services identified. When requested by the Office as reasonably necessary to proper examination, additional

  7. Section 2.34 - Bases for filing a trademark or service mark application

    37 C.F.R. § 2.34   Cited 12 times   24 Legal Analyses

    (a) An application for a trademark or service mark must include one or more of the following five filing bases: (1)Use in commerce under section 1(a) of the Act. The requirements for an application under section 1(a) of the Act are: (i) The applicant's verified statement that the mark is in use in commerce. If the verified statement is not filed with the initial application, the verified statement must also allege that the mark was in use in commerce as of the application filing date; (ii) The date