§

Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc.

No. 77455710 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2013)
Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc.

14 Cited authorities

  1. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc.

    529 U.S. 205 (2000)   Cited 776 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that fanciful, arbitrary, and suggestive marks are inherently distinctive

  2. Vuitton et Fils S.A. v. J. Young Enterprises, Inc.

    644 F.2d 769 (9th Cir. 1981)   Cited 118 times
    Finding that element of plaintiffs product design was non-functional in part because plaintiff treated the design element as a trademark from its inception

  3. Seabrook Foods v. Bar-Well Foods LTD

    568 F.2d 1342 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 98 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Setting forth analysis governing inherent distinctiveness of design marks

  4. In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp.

    240 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 38 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding 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”

  5. In re Chippendales USA, Inc.

    622 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 22 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that whether the trade dress was "a common basic shape or design" was "inapplicable" because "there has been no showing that the [trade dress] is common generally"

  6. Van Dyne-Crotty, Inc. v. Wear-Guard Corp.

    926 F.2d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 31 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the shorter phrase was not the legal equivalent of the longer mark

  7. In re Slokevage

    441 F.3d 957 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 5 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Interpreting Wal-Mart and holding that, where the alleged trade dress is incorporated into the product itself, it amounts to product design

  8. Morehouse Mfg. Corp. v. J. Strickland

    407 F.2d 881 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 37 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Morehouse Mfg. Corp. v. J. Strickland Co., 407 F.2d 881, 888-89, 160 USPQ 715, 721 (CCPA 1969) the court stated that false suggestion requires the existence of likelihood of confusion.

  9. University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co.

    703 F.2d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 19 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 1376, 217 USPQ 505, 509 (Fed. Cir. 1983), the court added that section 2(a) embraces concepts of the right to privacy which may be violated even in the absence of likelihood of confusion.

  10. Application of Soccer Sport Supply Company

    507 F.2d 1400 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 6 times

    Patent Appeal No. 74-550. January 9, 1975. Evelyn M. Sommer, New York City, atty. of record, for appellant; Murray Schaffer, New York City, of counsel. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; R.V. Lupo, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. MILLER, Judge. This appeal is from a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, abstracted at 180 USPQ 527 (1973)

  11. 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