McCrane, Inc.

12 Cited authorities

Aloe Creme Laboratories, Inc. v. Milsan, Inc.
423 F.2d 845 (5th Cir. 1970) Cited 81 times
Finding "Alo" is descriptive when referring to products containing the gel of the aloe vera plant
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"
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
Remington Products v. North Am. Philips Corp.
892 F.2d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 10 times
Holding that the phrase "travel care" had "gone into the public domain as a category of goods designation in the marketplace by reason of its extensive use as such" by the time the trademark registration was sought, the point at which the descriptiveness of the mark is properly determined
Car-Freshner Corp. v. Auto Aid Mfg. Corp.
461 F. Supp. 1055 (N.D.N.Y. 1978) Cited 6 times
No. 76-CV-501. December 5, 1978. Mackenzie Smith, Lewis, Michell Hughes, Syracuse, N.Y., for plaintiffs; Watson, Cole, Grindle Watson, Washington, D.C., Kevin M. Reilly, Syracuse, N.Y., F.M. deRosa, Walter D. Ames, Bernard L. Sweeney, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Stuart R. Shaw, New York City, for defendants. MUNSON, District Judge. MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, an accounting of profits, and treble damages for alleged trademark infringement
Application of Keebler Company
479 F.2d 1405 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 3 times
Patent Appeal No. 8966. June 14, 1973. A.W. Molinare, Chicago, Ill. (Molinare, Allegretti, Newitt Witcoff, Chicago, Ill.,) attorneys of record, for appellant. Robert C. Williams, Chicago, Ill., of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. John W. Dewhirst, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges and ALMOND, Senior Judge. LANE, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision
American Aloe Corp. v. Aloe Creme Laboratories, Inc.
291 F. Supp. 645 (N.D. Ill. 1968) Cited 1 times
Civ. A. No. 65 C 873. September 26, 1968. Donald Flynn, James G. Barnes and David R. MacDonald, Baker, McKenzie Hightower, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff. Charles J. O'Laughlin, Raymond, Mayer, Jenner Block, James R. McKnight, Chicago, Ill., for defendant. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PERRY, District Judge. The Court having examined the pleadings, and heard the testimony, and studied the exhibits, and briefs of the parties, filed by counsel, makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions
Armour and Company v. Organon, Inc.
245 F.2d 495 (C.C.P.A. 1957) Cited 9 times
Patent Appeal No. 6266. June 25, 1957. Carl C. Batz and Frank T. Barber, Chicago, Ill., for appellant. Alexander, Maltitz, Derenberg Daniels, New York City (Walter J. Derenberg and Joe E. Daniels, New York City, of counsel), for appellee. Before JOHNSON, Chief Judge, and O'CONNELL, WORLEY, RICH and JACKSON (retired), Judges. JOHNSON, Chief Judge. This is an appeal in an opposition proceeding from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, 106 U.S.P.Q. 220, speaking through the Assistant Commissioner
Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp. v. Faberge
304 F.2d 891 (C.C.P.A. 1962) Cited 3 times
Finding that applicant did not misuse registration symbol where party opposing registration “failed to produce any evidence of an intent ... to deceive the public by such marking”
Andrew J. McPartland v. Montgomery Ward
164 F.2d 603 (C.C.P.A. 1947) Cited 15 times
Patent Appeal No. 5304. November 29, 1947. Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents of United States Patent Office, T.M. Cancelation No. 4376. Trade-mark cancellation proceeding by Montgomery Ward Company against Andrew J. McPartland, Inc. From a decision of the Commissioner of Patents affirming the decision of the Examiner of Interferences sustaining the petition, the defendant appeals. Affirmed. Pennie, Edmonds, Morton Barrows, of New York City (Clarence M. Fisher, of Washington, D.C., and George
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,585 times 272 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"

McCrane, Inc.

12 Cited authorities

Finding "Alo" is descriptive when referring to products containing the gel of the aloe vera plant

Holding that a trademark in "Ruberoid"—a misspelling of "Rubberoid"—was descriptive and did not "become arbitrary by being misspelled"

Stating that the Board did not err in affirming the examiner's prima facie case that the mark was merely descriptive

Holding that the phrase "travel care" had "gone into the public domain as a category of goods designation in the marketplace by reason of its extensive use as such" by the time the trademark registration was sought, the point at which the descriptiveness of the mark is properly determined

Finding that applicant did not misuse registration symbol where party opposing registration “failed to produce any evidence of an intent ... to deceive the public by such marking”

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"