12 Cited authorities
Mil-Mar Shoe Co., Inc. v. Shonac Corp.
75 F.3d 1153 (7th Cir. 1996) Cited 99 timesHolding that "Warehouse Shoes" is generic for large shoe store, based on evidence that more than 8,000 retail stores use the word "warehouse" in their names, and that hundreds of retail shoe stores use some form of either "Shoe Warehouse" or "Warehouse Shoes" in their names
In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp.
240 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Cited 38 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that 1–888–M–A–T–T–R–E–S–S “immediately conveys the impressions that a service relating to mattresses is available by calling the telephone number”
In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, Smith
828 F.2d 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 57 times 4 Legal AnalysesHolding 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 Northland Aluminum Products, Inc.
777 F.2d 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1985) Cited 49 timesHolding "[e]vidence of the public's understanding of term," for purposes of establishing if mark is descriptive, "may be obtained from any competent source, including .^.^. dictionaries"
H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. International Ass'n of Fire Chiefs, Inc.
782 F.2d 987 (Fed. Cir. 1986) Cited 45 times 8 Legal AnalysesReversing decision of TTAB that "Fire Chief," as applied to monthly magazine circulated to fire departments, was generic
Magic Wand, Inc. v. RDB, Inc.
940 F.2d 638 (Fed. Cir. 1991) Cited 32 times 1 Legal AnalysesExplaining that the Lanham Act is clear "that the relevant public for a genericness determination is the purchasing or consuming public"
In re the American Fertility Society
188 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 1999) Cited 22 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that an earlier precedential decision is binding precedent on later panels
In re Gould Paper Corp.
834 F.2d 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 20 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that the compound term "SCREEN-WIPE" is generic as applied to wipes for cleaning monitor screens
Convenient Food Mart, Inc. v. 6-Twelve Convenient Mart, Inc.
690 F. Supp. 1457 (D. Md. 1988) Cited 14 timesCiv. No. Y-87-1020. July 21, 1988. Diane Fields Geocaris, Mark I. Feldman, Chicago, Ill., Gary M. Sircus, and Deborah Farmer Minot, Baltimore, Md., for plaintiff. Anthony C. Epstein, Diane H. Lautrup, Washington, D.C., and Richard J. Magid, Baltimore, Md., for defendants. MEMORANDUM JOSEPH H. YOUNG, Senior District Judge. This suit raises an easily stated issue: is the term "convenient," as used in the trade names of plaintiff and defendant food store chains, protected by the trademark laws for exclusive
Application of Searle Co.
360 F.2d 650 (C.C.P.A. 1966) Cited 8 timesPatent Appeal No. 7604. May 12, 1966. Walter C. Ramm, Chicago, Ill., for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (George C. Roeming, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Chief Judge Worley, pursuant to provisions of Section 294(d), Title 28, United States
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,600 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 1091 - Supplemental register
15 U.S.C. § 1091 Cited 78 timesStating that marks registered on the Supplemental Register "must be capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods or services"